PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY () Assessment Year: 2005-06
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
25.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2005-06, raising following grounds:
The Hon'bl and in law er (a) dismissin grounds that Tax Vidad se only one issu DTVSV. (b) not apprec Penalty was DTVSV, but adjudicated b 2013 (Again (Against Set a no Penalty co (c) not allowin in respect of t and Transfer basis the Ord 2013 (Again (Against Set a (d) not quash in view of afo appellant 2. The above without prejud 2. We have heard the relevant materials the Income-tax Act, inaccurate particular relevant finding of th “4. Penalty u/s (i) Disallowanc of Rs.4,51,04. representing 7 physicians for and the fact t Procter IT le Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals rred in: ng the impugned order u/s. 250 of th all three quantum issues were settled un e Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2020 though ue pertaining to Transfer Pricing was sett ciating the fact that all the said issues levied were not covered under settl t two quantum issues were sub by Hon'ble ITAT vide Orders dated 21 nst Original Order) and 16th Decemb aside order) in favour of the appellant a uld be levied in respect thereof. ng the appeal and quashing the penalty two issues (i.e., Disallowance of Physician r Pricing Adjustment in respect of Techn ders passed by Hon'ble ITAT dated 21 nst Original Order) and 16th Decemb aside order). hing the entire penalty levied of Rs. 2,56 oresaid facts and circumstances of the c grounds of appeal are distinct and sep dice to each other. rival submissions of the parti s on record. In the case penalty 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was rs of the income in respect of t e Assessing Officer is reproduce s 271(1)(c) is leviable on the following issues:- ce on account of free samples and stock disc 234/-: The AO had made the said disa 70% of the samples distributed to the doc want of sufficient proof as regards their di that the expenditure had been incurred for r and Gamble Heath Ltd 2 TA No. 328/MUM/2025 s) on facts he Act on nder Direct h however tled under on which led under bsequently st August ber 2021 and hence on merits n Samples nical Fees) st August ber 2021 6,21,685/- ase of the parate and ies and perused u/s 271(1)(c) of levied for filing three items. The ed as under: - repancies allowance ctors and istribution business purpose could has upheld the 271(1)(c) is levi (ii) Addition u/ Rs.2,81,00,581 1,83,99,104i- Associated ent to payment of t has upheld the 271(1)® is levia (iii) Disallowan issue since it is 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) view of Direct Tax Viv The relevant finding o “2.0 It is noted Scheme by filin thereto, the P certified the fu Form No. 5 da treated as infru Vishwas Act, 2.2 Before us, the out that the assessee transfer pricing adj Fumaret under the respect of other two addition. On perusal time of the penalty le of the free sample, in has deleted the ad Procter IT not be established by the assessee. The L e said disallowance. In view of these facts, pe iable for filing inaccurate particulars of income /s 92CA on account of transfer pricing adju 1/- : The AO has made an addition in respect of import of raw materials terprise and an addition of Rs.97,01,477/- i technical knowhow fees to Merck KGaA. The L e said disallowance. In view of these facts, pe able for filing inaccurate particulars of income nce u/s 14A: Penalty u/s 271(1)© is not leviab s debatable issue.” however treated the appeal as vad Se Vishwas Scheme opted b of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced a d that the appellant opted for the Vivad Se V ng Form 1 and Form 2 dated 01.10.2020. P Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumba ull and final payment of Rs. 0/- as taxes in t ated 11.05.2021. In view of the above, the ap uctuous as per Section 4(2) of the Direct Tax V 2020.” Ld. counsel for the assessee h e opted settlement of dispute on ustment in respect of impor Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwa issues, the Tribunal has alre l of the records, we find that in evied i.e. disallowance of 70% of n second round of the proceedin ddition observing in ITA No. r and Gamble Heath Ltd 3 TA No. 328/MUM/2025 Ld. CIT(A) enalty u/s e. ustment of n of Rs. from its n relation Ld. CIT(A) enalty u/s e. ble on this s infructuous in by the assessee. as under: Vishwas Pursuant ai-8 has terms of appeal is Vivad Se however pointed nly in respect of rt of Bisopeolol as Scheme. In ady deleted the n respect of first the distribution ngs, the Tribunal 1637, 1638 &
1639/Mum/2020 for 07 has deleted the ad
“11. On a peru cost incurred b in these assess incurred in the keeping in vie that no disal physician's sam
Accordingly, w appeals is all 2.3 Since the quan levied cannot survive to the addition of d deleted.
2.4 The second item pricing adjustment i which the assessee h fact has not been dis also. Once, the asses penalty is levied und penalty levied in re stands deleted.
2.5 The third item adjustment in respe made in this respect
Procter
IT r assessment years 2004-05, 20
ddition observing as under :
usal of material placed before us, it is noticed by the assessee towards distribution of free s sment years is much lesser than similar expe e earlier and subsequent assessment years w the peculiar circumstances of the case, w llowance out of the cost incurred towar mples is called for in any of these assessmen we delete the additions. Ground 1 in owed.”
ntum addition has been delet e. Accordingly, the penalty levied disallowance of distribution of m of the penalty levied is in res in relation to import of Bisop has settled under the Vivad Se sputed by the Ld. Departmental ssee has opted for Vivad Se Vish der the provisions of the schem espect of transfer pricing adju m of levy of the penalty is t ect of ‘technical knowhow fees t has been deleted by the Tribu r and Gamble Heath Ltd
4
TA No. 328/MUM/2025
005-06 & 2006- that the samples enditure s. Thus, we hold rds free nt years.
all the ted the penalty d corresponding free sample is spect of transfer rolol Fumarte , e Vishwas. This l Representative hwas scheme, no me. Accordingly, ustment is also transfer pricing s’. The addition unal in ITA No.
5596/Mum/2011 for relevant part of decis
“79. The issu the issue in I
No. 1.1 at p therefore, on by the assess
2005-2006 is 2.6 Since the trans knowhow has alread levied by the AO in re
3. The grounds of 4. In the result, th
Order pronounced (RAHUL CHAU
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 04/04/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forwarded
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Procter
IT r assessment year 2005-06. For ion is reproduced as under:
ue involved in Ground No. 1.2 are identic
ITA No. 2393/M/09 for A.Y. 2004-05 in paras 1 to 8, though quantum may similar lines, similar reasons, the appe see in ITA No. 5596/M/11 for assessme allowed for statistical purpose.”
sfer pricing adjustment in resp dy been deleted by the Tribun espect of same, cannot survive.
appeal of the assessee are accor he appeal of the assessee is allow d in the open Court on 04/04/202
/- UDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA d to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Regi
ITAT, Mum r and Gamble Heath Ltd
5
TA No. 328/MUM/2025
r ready refrence, cal with ground differ, eal filed ent year pect of technical nal, the penalty rdingly allowed.
wed.
5. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, istrar) mbai