2018 (3) TMI 1099

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dated 27.01.2015. 2. The solitary grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in deleting the addition Rs. 1,62,67,130/- made by the AO, as during the assessment proceeding as well as in the remand stage the assessee failed to substantiate to the expenses claimed under the head of 'Sales Promotion'. 3. The brief facts apropos this issue are that assessee filed its return of income for A.Y 2012-13 on 27.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 20.21,350/-. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(2) of the Act and the assessing officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) by making the disallowance on account of doctor investm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er held that the said circular is explanatory in nature and the effect of the said circular should be given from 10.12.2009, the date of amendment of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulation 2002. We note that the contention of the assessee on this issue was that the CBDT Circular No.05/2012 was applicable only from assessment year 2013-14 onwards and, therefore, not applicable to the assessee under consideration for the A.Y 2012-13.For that we rely on the judgment of the coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 6429/M/2012), dated 23.12.2015, wherein it was held that the CBDT Circular No.05/2012, is prospective in nature and therefore applicable ....