TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, when the claim was adjudicated by the AO in the assessment order and rejected on the merits. 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has travelled beyond the subject matter of the appeal and has erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal on the merits of the matter. 1.3. It is submitted and prayed that the learned CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated upon each of the grounds raised by the appellant and ought to have decided various issues considering submissions made by the appellant and the judicial pronouncements on the subject without simply rejecting all written submissions II. Deduction for Sales Promotion Expenses of Rs 28, 75, 17,266/- incurred on doctors for prescribing Appellant Company's Products: 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)"] has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer [AO] of not allowing deduction under section 37(1) of the Act of the sales promotion expenditure of Rs 28.75,17 266/- incurred by the Appellant. 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in holding that once the appellant has not made a claim in its return of income, it is not open to the appellant to make a claim subsequently during the course of assessment proceedings or the appellate proceedings. VI. The appellant craves leave, to add, to alter to amend, to modify, and /or to delete any of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary." Additional grounds of appeal: 1. Taxation of Export Incentives under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme ("MEIS") Rs. 48,57,84,707/-: 1.1 The Appellant submits that the Learned AO ought to have held that the amount of Rs. 48,57,84,707/- received by the Appellant as Export Incentives under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme ("MEIS") is a capital receipt not taxable under the provisions of the Act. 1.2 The Appellant submits that the amount of Rs 48, 57, 84,707/- received by the Appellant as Export Incentives under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme ("MEIS") is a capital receipt and ought to have been reduced while computing the Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 1.3 The Appellant prays for directing the A.O. to treat the amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of Ld.CIT (A), by not entertaining the claims of the assessee raised first time before the AO and then before the Ld.CIT (A). For sake of clarity and better appreciation of the matter we are reproducing herein below the relevant extracts of the decisions of honorable apex court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra). "The question raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant- assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. The assessment year in question was 1995-96. The return was filed on 30-11-1995 by the appellant for the assessment year in question. On 12-1-1998, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Income-tax Act to make amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. This appellant's appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was allowed. However, the order of the further appeal of the Department before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed. The appellant has approached this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicated on merits. 6. Ground no. 2 pertains to allowability of sales promotion expenses incurred on doctors for prescribing appellant company's product. This issue has deliberated in detail by the honorable apex court in the case of Apex Laboratories Ltd Vs CIT 442 ITR 1(S.C). Although the similar issue has been decided in appellants own case by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai for the AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 vides ITA NO. 4784 and 4785/Mum/2019 dated 25-05-2021 but in the light of decision of honorable apex court in the case of Apex Laboratories (supra) there is no rescue to the assessee and amount of sales promotion expenses is disallowable. Hence, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 7. Ground no.3 pertains to taxability of difference between deferral sales tax liability and its prepayment at its NPV u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. On this matter we have gone through the 1993 package scheme of incentives vide resolution no. IDL-1093/(8889)/IND dated 07-03-1993, letter of Sicom Ltd about eligibility certificate under packaged scheme of incentives, 1993 dated 18-07-2000 vide page no. 20 to 26 of paper-book no.2, copy of certificate of entitlement no.431107-S/....