DECCAN HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1302/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 September 2021AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal restored the issue of R&D disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, directing the assessee to provide documentary evidence. For advertisement and publicity expenses, the tribunal allowed a lump-sum estimation of 6% of the disallowed amount.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) concerning research and development expenses and advertisement/publicity/marketing charges for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The appeals were heard through video conference.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the allowability of research and development expenses and advertisement/publicity/marketing expenses, and the quantum of disallowance for the latter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These two assessee’s appeals for AYs.2011-12 and 2012- 13 arise against the CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad’s common order dated 31-03-2017 in appeal Nos.0691, 0690 / 2014-15 / CIT(A)-5, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 & u/s.143(3) [for AY.2012-13] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

Coming to the first and foremost identical issue of assessee’s research and development disallowance u/s.35 of the Act involving corresponding sums of Rs.1,03,70,865/-

1.

:- 2 -: & 1302/Hyd/2017 each and both the learned lower representatives invited our attention to the tribunal’s order in assessee’s appeals and 1277/Hyd/2017 for AY.2010-11 restoring the same back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification of the corresponding expenses. We thus adopt the very course of action herein as well. The assessee is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on or before 15- 12-2021 with all the relevant documentary evidences; at its own risk and responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. This identical first and foremost ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

3.

Next comes the identical latter substantive ground of disallowance of assessee’s advertisement and publicity, marketing and refusal charges expenses of Rs.67,96,720/- and Rs.51,07,116/- and Rs.67,96,720/-; respectively in both the twin assessment years. Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have made the impugned disallowance(s) quoting the assessee’s failure in filing all the supportive evidences providing the same to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. The fact also remains that the impugned latter head of disallowance involves day-to-day selling/marketing expenses which cannot be per se ruled out. We therefore are of the opinion that a lump-sum estimation of 6% pertaining to the instant identical latter issue would be just and proper in both these assessment years with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a :- 3 -: & 1302/Hyd/2017 precedent in any other case. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other ground has been pressed before us.

4.

These two appeals of assessee are treated as partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th October, 2021

More judgments on Section 35

All 169 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →