2018 (5) TMI 2013

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iture incurred on sales promotion. 3. At the outset, learned AR placed on record the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y.2011-12 dated 02/04/2018, wherein similar addition made by the AO was deleted by the Tribunal in entirety. 4. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. From the record we found that the assessee is a Private Limited Company. It is engaged in the buying and distribution of pharmaceuticals. The assessee e-filed its Return of Income on 29/11/2012 declaring total income of Rs. 11,93,31,790/-. The learned Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax has disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,28,79,269/- from Sales Promotion expenses. 5. By the impugned order, CIT(A)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly. In this regard, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in DCIT Vs. PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd. (2017) 163 1TD 10 (Mum. Trib.), macleods Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. ADIT (2016) 161 1TD 291 (Mum. Trib.), Syeom formulations India Ltd. (ITA No. 6429/M/2012 (Mum. Trib.) & UCB India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 6681 & 5454/M/2013) (Mum. Trib.) However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. The assessee raised the claim of sale promotion expenses which has been declined fully by the Assessing Officer while passing the order dated 08.03.2014. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 97,93,9967- which was belonging to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Syeom formulations India Ltd. (ITA No. 6429/M/2012 (Mum. Trib.) & UCB India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 6681 & 5454/M/2013) (Mum. Trib.), Accordingly, we are of the view that the expenses are allowable, therefore, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue 7. The facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same and the CBDT Circular No.5/2012 dated 01/08/2012 is prospective in nature, therefore, not applicable for the A.Y.2012-13 under consideration. We also found that same view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in the following decisions, wherein it was held that Circular is prospective in nature. * DCIT Vs. PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd. (2017) 163 ITD 10 (Mum. Trib.) * SolvayPh....