AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e disallowance of Rs. 2,99,27,462/- held to be expenditure prohibited by law as per Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, applicable from A.Y. 2010-11." 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,24,31,990/- being reduction of deduction u/s 80IC by apportioning R&D expenses to Baddi & Solan Unit of the assessee." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that since the issue of allocation of expenses of R &D between Baddi Unit and Solan Unit was already subject matter of appeal, the AO cannot re-open the asssessment. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is issue is covered by my order in the appellant's own case in A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 by observing as under: "Further, I agree with the contention of the assessee that, "Receiving of gifts by doctors was prohibited by MCI guidelines, giving of the same by manufacturer are not prohibited under any law for the time being in force. Further the CBDT circular was introduced w.e.f 01.08.2012 i.e. A.Y 2013-14 and not for the year under appeal. Similar issue was there before the Mumbai ITAT wherein Tribunal in the case of of DCIT vs. Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) vide its judgment given on 6 February 2016 (ITA 6429 & 6428/Mum/2012) has held as under: "Receiving of gifts by doctors was prohibited by MCI guidelines, giving of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al contentions and found that issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was held that CBDT circular so relied on by the AO was not applicable for the year under consideration, because it was introduced w.e.f. 01/08/2012 i.e. A.Y.2013-14. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing the expenditure by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench as stated above. 7. Assessee has also claimed deduction u/s.80IC by apportioning R & D expenses amongst various units. AO declined apportionment and reduced quantum of deduction u/s.80IC. By the impugned order CIT(A) allowed assessee's claim, against which revenue is in further appeal before us. 8. Rival contentions have been heard and record pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... profit eligible for deduction u/s 80IC since they are allowed weighted deduction of 150% u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The unit situate at Baddi was eligible for deduction u/s.80IC. While arriving at deduction, u/s.80IC the AO apportioned R & D expenses between two units excluding trade sales from total turnover of the assessee. The AO observed that there were purchase of trading goods to the tune of INR 84,14,96,010/- which was shown in the note; Cost of sales under the head ―purchase of traded goods‖ and accordingly, the assessee was given an opportunity as to why the apportionment of R & D expenses should not be made by excluding trading sales and re-compute the disallowance. 9. The AO has noted that assessee has 5 manufacturing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. It is submitted that in the assessee's case, the issue of allocation was subject matter of CIT (A) as mentioned in the facts of the case and the same is in appeal with ITAT, re-assessing the same by the later AO is not allowed and is bad in law. 13. Learned AR also placed reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd.,246 ITR 292 in support of the proposition that power to reopen the assessment cannot be exercised if the subject matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). 14. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order passed by the AO. 15. We have considered rival contentions and found that during the course of re-assessment proceedings, AO found that trading sales has no connection wit....