CIT v. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma

316 ITR 419High Court2009#6564 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also reported as

216 CTR 281

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

prohibited by lawsection 37(1)section 37scrutiny assessmentpersoncompanyindiabusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma

DIOSMA LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1) THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4271/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankardiosma Lifesciences Private V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Limited बनाम 4(1), Qureshi Mansion, Shop No. 77, C-Wing, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Harmony Mall Commercial Thane West, Thane - 400 Premises, Bhagat Singh Nagar 602, Maharashtra No.1, Link Road, Goregaon(West), Mumbai - 400 104, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcd0525R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aadesh Rai, Addl. CIT, (Virtually appeared)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…t, 1998, with effect from April 1, 1962, the assessee could not claim such payment as expended for commercial exigency and, therefore, the same was not an allowable deduction. Similarly, the hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Pt. Vishwanath Sharma’s case, [2009] 316 ITR 419 (All) while considering the issue relating to commission paid to Government doctors for prescribing assessee’s medicines to patients, held it to be contravening public policy and was therefore an inadmissible expenditure. It would be worthwhile to refer to a recent judgment in the case of Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre Pvt Ltd Vs PC…

GALDERMA INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT - 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statisti...

ITA 1987/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. Acit-9(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Nestle Skin Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Health India Pvt. Ltd.), Road, Lotus Corporate Park, D Wing, Mumbai-400020. Unit 801 & 802, Graham Firth Steel Compound, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aacg 8660 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-1(3)(1), M/S Galderma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, (Previously Known As M/S Mestle Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Skin Health India Pvt. Ltd.), Road, Lotus Corporate Park, ‘D’ Wing, Mumbai-400020. Unit 801 & 802, Graham Firth Steel Compound, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aacg 8660 M Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-
Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. ACIT-9(3)(2), (Formerly known as Nestle Skin Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Health India Pvt. Ltd.), Road, Lotus Corporate Park, D Wing, Mumbai-400020. Unit 801 & 802, Graham Firth Steel Compound, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. PAN No. AACG 8660 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 ACIT-1(3)(1), M/s Galderma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 5…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1520/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…d that if demanding of such commission was bad, then paying of it was also equally bad and hence both were privies to a wrong. Therefore, payment of commission to private doctors was held as not allowable expenditure. ii) CIT Vs. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma (2009) 316 ITR 419 (All.). In this case, commission paid to the Government doctors was held to be illegal gratification/bribe and hence the expenditure thereon was treated to be not allowable u/s. 37. 27.2.3 In view of the above factual and legal position, disallowance of accommodation and business promotion expenses is confirmed and balance is directed to be dele…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1519/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…d that if demanding of such commission was bad, then paying of it was also equally bad and hence both were privies to a wrong. Therefore, payment of commission to private doctors was held as not allowable expenditure. ii) CIT Vs. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma (2009) 316 ITR 419 (All.). In this case, commission paid to the Government doctors was held to be illegal gratification/bribe and hence the expenditure thereon was treated to be not allowable u/s. 37. 27.2.3 In view of the above factual and legal position, disallowance of accommodation and business promotion expenses is confirmed and balance is directed to be dele…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1463/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…d that if demanding of such commission was bad, then paying of it was also equally bad and hence both were privies to a wrong. Therefore, payment of commission to private doctors was held as not allowable expenditure. ii) CIT Vs. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma (2009) 316 ITR 419 (All.). In this case, commission paid to the Government doctors was held to be illegal gratification/bribe and hence the expenditure thereon was treated to be not allowable u/s. 37. 27.2.3 In view of the above factual and legal position, disallowance of accommodation and business promotion expenses is confirmed and balance is directed to be dele…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1462/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…d that if demanding of such commission was bad, then paying of it was also equally bad and hence both were privies to a wrong. Therefore, payment of commission to private doctors was held as not allowable expenditure. ii) CIT Vs. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma (2009) 316 ITR 419 (All.). In this case, commission paid to the Government doctors was held to be illegal gratification/bribe and hence the expenditure thereon was treated to be not allowable u/s. 37. 27.2.3 In view of the above factual and legal position, disallowance of accommodation and business promotion expenses is confirmed and balance is directed to be dele…

M/S. HIMALAYA WELLNESS COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY),BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

…continually stressed on the need to divorce interpretation of tax provisions from a perceived immorality / violation of public policy. Apex repeatedly relied on T.A. Quereshi (supra), M/s K.M. Jain (supra) and CIT v. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma (2009) 182 Taxman 63/316 ITR 419 (All.). We find that none of these judgments find much favour with the case of the appellant. T.A. Quereshi addressed a business ‘loss’, not a business ‘expenditure’ as envisioned under Section 37(1). In M/s K.M. Jain, the ransom money paid to kidnappers of the employee of the assessee company was allowed deduction primarily based on the fact tha…

ACIT. CIRCLE-3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S EIPR INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7471/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eipr India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor G-11, Tulsiani Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fress Press Journal Marg Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaace9094M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi
Section 14ASection 69C

…r your ready reference in the case of CIT vA.S.K. Rathinaswamy Nadar 75 Taxmann 638 (Madras High Court) in which an identical issue has been allowed. (Viii) The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT v. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma (2008) 216 CTR 281 where it was held as follows: “2. The assessee is dealing in Ayurvedic medicines. For the assessment year 19891990, he claims that he spent Rs. 2,46,254/- as business expenditure by paying commission to various Doctors at the rate of 25/who were prescribing his medicines to the patients. The said Doctors/Vaids were both private as well as Governm…

M/S. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2458/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2010-11 Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) Commerce House Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Rajvansh Apartment Judges Bungalow Road Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aabct 0228 K

For Respondent: Shri Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…ses in the name of commercial interest, it is better for the society not to have any such commerce.” 6 7. Apart from the above philosophy, the ld.CIT(A) has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma, 316 ITR 419 (All) as well as judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre P.Ltd., 344 ITR 476. Before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the issue was whether expenditure incurred by an assessee on the ground that commission paid to Government doctors incurred by the assessee is in contravention of the…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LIFE STAR PHARMA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5012/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Acit, Circle 15 (2), Vs Life Star Pharma Pvt.Ltd., C.R. Building, 208, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. Phase-3, New Delhi. Pan No : Aabcl3646F Department By Smt. Naina Soin Kabil, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Sumit Goel, Cit(A) & Shri J.P.Sharma,Ca Date Of Hearing 13.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2018 O R D E R Per Diva Singh : The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Assailing The Correctness Of The Order Dated 29.07.2016 Of Cit(A)-5, Delhi Pertaining To 2012-13 Assessment Year On The Following Grounds : "1. Whether, On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law , Id. Cit (A) Was Right In Holding That The Commission Paid By The Assessee To The Doctors Was Allowable As It Was In Keeping With A Trade Practice & Thus Ignoring The Fact That It Was An Illegal Payment Not Allowable As Per The Explanation To Section 37(1) Of The Act.?" 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 69,07,000/- Made On Account Of Expenses Incurred On Doctors ? 3 That The Grounds Of Appeal Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 4 That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of The Appeal Raised Above At The Time Of The Hearing. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Engaged In The Business Of Marketing Pharmaceutical Products (Medicines) Through A Nationwide Network Of C&F Agents In The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings Was Required To Justify The Business Promotion Expenses Of Rs. 69,07,000/-. The Cbdt Circular No. 5 Of 2012 Was Referred To On The Basis

Section 37Section 37(1)

…ly the departmental appeal may be dismissed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that in the facts of the present case, in the face of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pt. Vishwanath Sharma 316 ITR 419 which has been followed by the Co-ordinate Bench vide its order dated 15.03.2016 in the case of Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs ACIT which position of law has been followed by the CIT(A) in the present proceedings, the departmental appeal has to be dismissed. For ready reference, finding of the Co-ordinate Bench followed by the CIT(A) is extracted hereund…

GALDERMA INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1139/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm M/S. Galderma India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit 9(1)(1) Lotus Corporate Park, Mumbai D Wing, Unit 801 & 802 Graham Firth Steel Compound Western Express Highway Goregaon East Mumbai – 400 063 Pan/Gir No.Aaacg8660M Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit 9(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Galderma India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Lotus Corporate Park, D Wing, Unit 801 & 802 Graham Firth Steel Compound Western Express Highway Goregaon East Mumbai – 400 063 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg8660M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM M/s. Galderma India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT 9(1)(1) Lotus Corporate Park, Mumbai D Wing, Unit 801 & 802 Graham Firth Steel Compound Western Express Highway Goregaon East Mumbai – 400 063 PAN/GIR No.AAACG8660M Appellant) .. Respondent) ACIT 9(3)(2) Vs. M/s. Galderma India Pvt. Ltd., MUMBAI Lotus Corporate Park, D Wing, Unit 801 & 802 Graham Firth Steel Compound Western Express Highway Goregaon East Mumbai – 400 063 PAN/GIR No. AAACG8660M Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Manshi Padhiar & Mr. Romit Raka R…

ACIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GALDERMA INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed and the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 80/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.80/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-9(3)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. 23, 2Nd Floor Steelmade 418, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. Indl. Estate, Marol Village Floor, M.K. Marg, Mumbai- Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400020 400059 Ita. No. 138/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit 8(1) Lotus Corporate Park, D Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Wing, Unit 801 & 802, Road, Mumbai. Graham Firth Steel Compound, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai 400063. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg8660M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Vidhyadhar Assessee By: Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 30.10.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.80/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT-9(3)(2) बिधम/ M/s. Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. 23, 2nd Floor Steelmade 418, Aayakar Bhavan, 4th Vs. Indl. Estate, Marol Village Floor, M.K. Marg, Mumbai- Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400020 400059 ITA. No. 138/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ DCIT 8(1) Lotus Corporate Park, D Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. wing, Unit 801 & 802, Road, Mumbai. Graham Firth Steel Compound, Western Express…

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…other words, if there is a statutory provision then it is to be followed irrespective of moral values on the issue and the plea taken by the assessee before lower authorities. Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is rejected. iii) CIT vs Pt. Vishwanath Sharma 316 ITR 419 (Allahabad) The Apex Court held that when an assessee is being taxed under the Income-tax Act, the question has not been decided on the basis of emotions or moral approach but on legal approach. iv) CIT Vs Koodathii Kallyatan 2008-TIQL-427-HC-MUM-IT The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mill Manufacturing Co. Ltd…

M/S ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1009/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…Finance Act, 1998, with effect from April 1, 1962, the assessee could not claim such payment as expended for commercial exigency and, therefore, the same was not an allowable deduction. 35.4 The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma (316 ITR 419)(All) while considering the issue relating to commission paid to Government doctors for ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 66 of 72 prescribing the assessee's medicines to patients held it to be contravening public policy and an inadmissible expenditure. However, no distinction can be made in respect of Government doctors and pr…

M/S ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1008/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…Finance Act, 1998, with effect from April 1, 1962, the assessee could not claim such payment as expended for commercial exigency and, therefore, the same was not an allowable deduction. 35.4 The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma (316 ITR 419)(All) while considering the issue relating to commission paid to Government doctors for ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 66 of 72 prescribing the assessee's medicines to patients held it to be contravening public policy and an inadmissible expenditure. However, no distinction can be made in respect of Government doctors and pr…

M/S ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 767/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…Finance Act, 1998, with effect from April 1, 1962, the assessee could not claim such payment as expended for commercial exigency and, therefore, the same was not an allowable deduction. 35.4 The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma (316 ITR 419)(All) while considering the issue relating to commission paid to Government doctors for ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 66 of 72 prescribing the assessee's medicines to patients held it to be contravening public policy and an inadmissible expenditure. However, no distinction can be made in respect of Government doctors and pr…

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. MANKIND PHARMA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue, assessee and cross objections filed by the assesseeare accordingly disposed off

ITA 2138/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

…10/12/2009. 4.2. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pandit Vishwanath Sharma reported in 316 ITR 419 (All) and the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Life Sight Surgicals P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (TTJ)(Ahd.)(UO) (27), deleted the additions in all assessment years vide separate orders. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied upon the CBDT Circular dated 01/08/2012, which was consequent to the amendment made by MCI Regulations vide gazette notification dated…

MANKIND PHARMA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue, assessee and cross objections filed by the assesseeare accordingly disposed off

ITA 1390/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

…10/12/2009. 4.2. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pandit Vishwanath Sharma reported in 316 ITR 419 (All) and the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Life Sight Surgicals P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (TTJ)(Ahd.)(UO) (27), deleted the additions in all assessment years vide separate orders. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied upon the CBDT Circular dated 01/08/2012, which was consequent to the amendment made by MCI Regulations vide gazette notification dated…