2022 (9) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e present on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment was filed before us. The appeal was filed in 2017 and since then we have noted that the assessee has remained unrepresented or sought adjournment on several occasions. Further on the past three occasions, despite direction by the Bench to issue notice through Registered Post, the assessee has not responded. It seems the assessee is not interested in participating in the proceedings in its case. It was therefore decided to proceed with the hearing in the case. 3. At the outset, it was stated by the Ld. DR that the sole issue involved in the appeal related to disallowance of product registration expenses amounting to Rs. 1,71,77,152/- which the assessee had claimed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibed quality standard for a particular drug. The standards are vary from country to country. Thus, this expenditure is a mandate for any exporter of pharmaceutical products and registration is issued in favour of manufacturer. Such expenditure is qua the product and not qua the manufacturer. Moreover, once this registration is granted by respective health' department of the country then again you may be required to re-register on subsequent export or may be after a period of one or two years depending on respective country regulation in this regard. Considering the above fact p/ease find that registration is obtained by us but issued for a particular product list only and to a particular manufacturer. Now there is an equal poss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er noted that identical expenses had been held to be revenue in nature by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Torrent Pharma (supra) and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra) and following which decisions in the case of the assessee also, the claim in the preceding year was allowed. His finding at para 4.1.1 of the order are as under: "4.1.1 It is seen that the identical ground was the subject matter of appeal in the appellant's own case for the immediately preceding year i.e. for Asst. Year 2013-14 and the CIT(A) vide order No. CIT[A)-9/10599/DCIT. Cir.3(1)(l]/15-16 dated 04.07.2011 relying on the decisions of the Hon. Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT v/s. Torrent Pharma Ltd. (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 405 and C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. 752 of 2012). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Torrent Pharma Ltd. (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 405 and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. in Ta Appeal No. 752 of 2012 held as under: "Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of sales promotion expenses - A.Y. 1999-2000 - Whether expenditure incurred by assessee on foreign country Registration for marketing its products in foreign countries and promoting sales, was to be allowed as revenue expenditure-Held, yes" (in favour of assessee) Following the above orders of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court, I allow the claim of appellant regarding Product Registration expenses of Rs. 27,57,838/-. Accordingly the A.O. is directed....