Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Disallowance of Expenditure on Gifts & Payments to Doctors Upheld</h1> <h3>M/s Shri Ramkrupa kedicare Versus ACIT, Circle-4, Baroda.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 5,97,314/- for gifts to doctors as non-business expenditure due to lack of verifiable details and ... Disallowance of expenditure considering it as non-business expenditure being gifts given to Doctors - Held that:- We observe that assessee has duly accepted to have given the gifts on various items including mobile phone, jewellery, dinner set etc. to various doctors or maintaining cordial business relationship. We further observe that ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that all these doctors are earning professional income in the course of providing professional services and they have received these gifts. We agree with this view that looking to the materiality of the amount which is ₹ 5,97,314/- it was necessary on the part of the assessee to provide complete details containing names, addresses of the doctors who have accepted these gifts so that it could have facilitated the Revenue to recover the due taxes from them. We find that assessee is unable to provide these details. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the addition. We uphold the same and dismiss the ground of assessee. TDS u/s 194J - payments made to doctors as allowable without deducting TDS - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- Respectfully following the judgment of Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township (P) Ltd. (2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT) and Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT (2014 (6) TMI 79 - ITAT AGRA) wherein it was held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005, we restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction that assessee shall provide before him all the details with regard to the recipients of the income of having received ₹ 53,41,049/- and taxes paid by them. We further direct the Assessing Officer to carryout necessary verification in respect of the payments and taxes of such income and also filing of income-tax return by the recipients. Needless to mention that adequate opportunity will be provided to the assessee for filing necessary details to show that the said recipients have reflected the receipts in their books of account and offered the same to tax in the period under consideration. In case the Assessing Officer finds that the recipients have duly paid the taxes on the income, the addition made by the Assessing Officer shall stand deleted. This ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,97,314/- as non-business expenditure (gifts to doctors).2. Confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 53,41,049/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for non-deduction of TDS on payments to doctors.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Confirmation of disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,97,314/- as non-business expenditure (gifts to doctors):The assessee, a company engaged in running a Heart Institute, Critical Care Centre, and Diagnostic Centre, filed a return of income declaring Rs. 86,48,170/-. After scrutiny, the income was assessed at Rs. 1,55,19,515/- due to certain additions, including the disallowance of Rs. 5,97,314/- for gifts to doctors. The assessee contended that these gifts were for maintaining cordial business relationships with doctors, and thus, should be considered business promotion expenses allowable under Section 37 of the IT Act.The CIT(A) disallowed the expenditure, noting that the gifts were not verifiable due to the lack of details such as names and addresses of the recipient doctors. It was also observed that these gifts could be considered professional fees, requiring TDS deduction under Section 194J, which was not done. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to verify the expenditure and facilitate tax recovery from the recipients. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 5,97,314/- was confirmed.2. Confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 53,41,049/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for non-deduction of TDS on payments to doctors:During the assessment, the AO noted an expenditure of Rs. 53,41,049/- towards laboratory charges, which was treated as professional fees paid to Dr. Dhiren Shah and others, requiring TDS deduction under Section 194J. The assessee argued that the services were provided directly to patients, making the patients liable for TDS deduction, not the assessee. However, the AO found that the payments were made by the hospital, and thus, TDS should have been deducted. The CIT(A) upheld this view, emphasizing that the laboratory services were integral to the hospital's operations and the hospital collected the charges, making it liable for TDS deduction.The Tribunal considered the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), which states that disallowance cannot be made if the recipient has included the income in their return and paid taxes. Citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Ansal Landmark Township (P) Ltd. and the ITAT Agra Bench's decision in Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, the Tribunal held that the proviso is declaratory and curative, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. The issue was restored to the AO to verify if the recipients had included the income in their returns and paid taxes. If verified, the disallowance would be deleted.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal upholding the disallowance of Rs. 5,97,314/- for gifts to doctors and remanding the issue of Rs. 53,41,049/- disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to the AO for further verification.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found