CIPLA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 1(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2732/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 December 2022AY 2011-1215 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of freebies to doctors, following a Supreme Court decision. It partly allowed the assessee's appeal concerning weighted deduction for R&D expenses and remanded the issue of Section 14A disallowance back to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, Cipla Ltd., a pharmaceutical firm, offered expenses incurred on gifts and freebies to doctors, amounting to Rs. 269.57 crores, during a survey action. The Assessing Officer made significant additions to the total income. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issues involved the allowability of expenses incurred on gifts/freebies to doctors and the eligibility of weighted deduction for R&D expenditure, including foreign consultancy and building repairs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1),Section 35(2B),Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Shri Hemen Chandariya

For Appellant: Shri Hemen Chandariya
For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Hearing: 30.09.2022Pronounced: 23.12.2022

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.: These are cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short),

National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12. 2. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order in both these

appeals.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a pharmaceutical

company engaged in manufacturing and sale of bulk drugs and pharmaceutical p

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →