TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Year: 2010-11 2. First we take up the appeal of Revenue. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs.58,70,63,515/- made on account of Freebie paid to doctors, despite the facts that the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT on this issue in assessee's case in respect of AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12, has not accepted by the Revenue and an appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend and/or to alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. 3. The appellant, therefore, prays that on the grounds stated above, the order of the CIT(A)-48, Mumbai may be set ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer re-affirmed the additions so made on this issue relating to the freebies given to the Doctors. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions on this issue and thus, the Revenue is in this appeal before us. 6. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the record. It has been time and again held by the various High Courts that if no incriminating material is found during the search action, the addition in the case of already concluded assessment cannot be made while framing assessment u/s 153A of the Act. Reliance in this respect can be placed in the case of 'CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation' ITA No. 523 of 2013 reported in (2015) 279 CTR 0389 (Bombay) and of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our observation that the finding arrived at in appeal before the High Court on this issue will accordingly apply to the case of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. ITA No. 7770/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 8. Now coming to the appeal of the assessee. The assessee in this appeal raising following ground: "1. The authorities below have erred in law as well as facts in apportioning/upholding the apportionment of Research & Development expenses u/s 35(2AB) to various units of the appellant including the units eligible for deduction u/2 80IB and 80IC." 9. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is relating to the allocation of the expenditure relating to the R&D unit to the other units which are exempt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich shows that they are completely independent from each other. Assessee placed reliance on the Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd., v. CIT [350 ITR 366] and various other decisions in support of his contention that R & D expenditure incurred in head office cannot be allocated to the units. We observe from the Assessment Order that the Assessing Officer predominantly stating that R & D expenditure incurred by the assessee is inextricably linked with the business of the assessee including the business relating to products which are manufactured in the units for which deduction u/s. 80IB and 80IC were claimed. However, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the R & D expenditure incurred by the assessee benefitted the existing units ....