TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: Shri V.Vinod Kumar, DR ORDER PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals filed by the revenue are directed against separate, but identical orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai, both dated 28/12/2018 for the Asst. Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Department and appeal u/s. 260A has been filed before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court? 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of marketing and trading of dermatology products. The assesee has filed its return of income for the AY 2011- 12 on 30/09/2011, declaring total income of Rs. 6,80,98,658/-. The assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....motion expense, on the ground that circular No.05/2012, dated 01/08/2012, issued by the CBDT is applicable from AY 2013- 14 onwards and consequently, no disallowances could be made towards sales promotion expenses being freebies given to doctors for AY 2011-12. 4. The Ld. AR for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961, on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons given for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that the ITAT, Mumbai 'G' bench in ITA No.80/Mum/2016 & ITA No.138/Mum/2016, vide order dated 02/04/2018 for AY 2011-12 has deleted additions made by the Ld. AO towards sales promotion expense, in l....