Dy. CIT v. PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd.

78 Taxmann.com 36Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#3135 most cited

What is Dy. CIT v. PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Pharmaceutical companies are not subject to the Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines concerning freebies given to doctors. Consequently, expenses on such freebies are not disallowed under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Dy. CIT v. PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd. · Section 37(1) · freebies to doctors · MCI guidelines · CBDT Circular 5/2012 · pharmaceutical companies · revenue expenditure · medical practitioners

Also reported as

163 ITD 10

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 131 of the Income Tax ActSection 133(6) of the Income Tax ActSection 133A of the Income Tax ActSection 23 of the Contract Act

Issues it is cited on

freebies to doctorsexplanation to section 37section 135prohibited by lawretracted statementsection 30commercial expediencyprofits and gains of business or professiontnmmrevenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37(1)

Judgments citing Dy. CIT v. PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd.

India Medtronic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 10(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 601/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 1241, Solitaire Corporate Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room Vs. Park, Bldg. No .12, 4Th Floor, No. 209, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri- Ghatkopar Link Mumbai-400020. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaaci4227Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan R. Vora, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajneesh Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajneesh Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…. 4.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the AY 2010-11, relying on the decision of Max Hospital (WPC 1334/2013) India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. 8 (Del) and PHL Pharma (163 ITD 10) (ITAT Mumbai) held that (i) MCI guidelines are applicable to the professionals i.e. Doctors only and do not govern the other tax entities or individuals other than doctors and (ii) MCI, as a body can formulate policy for Doctors and the appellant is not a practicing professional and therefore, any guidelines issued by it cannot decide the allowab…

Aishika Pharma P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 732/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri I.P.Bansal And Shri Vivek Bansal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 37Section 37(1)

…re, the assessee company pleaded that the said expenditure be allowed as business expenditure. In support of its contention, the assessee company relied upon the Order of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT-8(2), Mumbai vs. PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd., [2017] 163 ITD 10 (Mumbai- Tribu.) in which the Tribunal has upheld the Order of the 6 ITA.No.732/Del./2019 M/s. Aishika Pharma Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the similar disallowance. The A.O. however, did not accept the contention of assessee and submitted that Board Circular is in line with Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O. relied upon…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 929/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Assessment Appeal(s) by Nos. Year (s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 922/Ahd/17 2010-11 The DCIT Sun Pharmaceuticals Circle-2(1)(1) Industries Ltd. Baroda SPARC, Tandalja Baroda PAN:AADCS 3124 K (Revenue) (Assessee) 2. 929/Ahd/17 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 3. 1234/Ahd/17 2012-13 Revenue Assessee 4. 1237/Ahd/17 2012-13 Assessee Revenue Revenue by : Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR Assessee by : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin S…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 922/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Assessment Appeal(s) by Nos. Year (s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 922/Ahd/17 2010-11 The DCIT Sun Pharmaceuticals Circle-2(1)(1) Industries Ltd. Baroda SPARC, Tandalja Baroda PAN:AADCS 3124 K (Revenue) (Assessee) 2. 929/Ahd/17 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 3. 1234/Ahd/17 2012-13 Revenue Assessee 4. 1237/Ahd/17 2012-13 Assessee Revenue Revenue by : Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR Assessee by : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin S…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1237/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Assessment Appeal(s) by Nos. Year (s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 922/Ahd/17 2010-11 The DCIT Sun Pharmaceuticals Circle-2(1)(1) Industries Ltd. Baroda SPARC, Tandalja Baroda PAN:AADCS 3124 K (Revenue) (Assessee) 2. 929/Ahd/17 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 3. 1234/Ahd/17 2012-13 Revenue Assessee 4. 1237/Ahd/17 2012-13 Assessee Revenue Revenue by : Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR Assessee by : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin S…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1234/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Assessment Appeal(s) by Nos. Year (s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 922/Ahd/17 2010-11 The DCIT Sun Pharmaceuticals Circle-2(1)(1) Industries Ltd. Baroda SPARC, Tandalja Baroda PAN:AADCS 3124 K (Revenue) (Assessee) 2. 929/Ahd/17 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 3. 1234/Ahd/17 2012-13 Revenue Assessee 4. 1237/Ahd/17 2012-13 Assessee Revenue Revenue by : Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR Assessee by : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin S…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 820/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Himalaya Drug Company, Income Tax, Makali, Tumkur Road, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore – 562 123. Bangalore. PAN: AADFT 3025B APPELLANT RESPONDENT & CO No.82/Bang/2017 [in ITA No.820/Bang/2017] Assessment year : 2005-06 M/s. Himalaya Drug Company, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Makali, Tumkur Road, Income Tax, Bangalore – 562 123. Central Circle 1(1), PAN: AADFT 3025B Bangalore. APPELLANT / CROSS OBJECT…

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 802/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Himalaya Drug Company, Income Tax, Makali, Tumkur Road, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore – 562 123. Bangalore. PAN: AADFT 3025B APPELLANT RESPONDENT & CO No.82/Bang/2017 [in ITA No.820/Bang/2017] Assessment year : 2005-06 M/s. Himalaya Drug Company, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Makali, Tumkur Road, Income Tax, Bangalore – 562 123. Central Circle 1(1), PAN: AADFT 3025B Bangalore. APPELLANT / CROSS OBJECT…

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)

…t order and on the circular of the CBDT. 6. The ld. AR, on the other hand, relying upon the submissions advanced before the CIT(A) and referring to the decisions made available in the Paper Book filed namely; DCIT Vs PHL Pharma Pvt Lid (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2017] 163 ITD 10; Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT decision in case of Syncom formulations (I) Ltd.; Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT decision in case of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs DCIT 62 ITR (Trib.) 744 (Pune); Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT decision in case of Solvay Pharma India Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT.(ITA NO. 3585/MUM/2016, Order Dtd, 11.01.2018) and Delhi ITAT decision in Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Gro…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Serum Institute of India Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 934/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.549 & 550/PUN/2016 अ…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Serum Institute of India Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 607/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.549 & 550/PUN/2016 अ…

Serum Institute of India Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 550/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.549 & 550/PUN/2016 अ…

Serum Institute of India Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 549/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.549 & 550/PUN/2016 अ…

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)

…sent case. Now, coming to the applicability of the circular dated 01.08.2012 is concerned, we are of the view that the same is not applicable retrospectively and in this regard we are also finding support in law settled in DCIT Vs, PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd. (2017) 163 ITD 10 (Mum. Trib.), macleods Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. ADIT (2016) 161 ITD 291 (Mum. Trib.), Syeom formulations India Ltd. (ITA No. 6429/M/2012 (Mum. Trib.) & UCB India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 6681 & 5454/M/2013) (Mum. Trib.), Accordingly, we are of the view that the expenses are allowable, therefore, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee agai…

Icpa Health Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6244/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhita No.6245/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2013-14) Icpa Health Products Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Off. 216-219,Adarsh Income Tax, Circle-10(1)(1), Industrial Estate, Sahar Mumbai, Road, Chakala, Andheri(E), Vs. Room No. 702, C-10, Mumbai-400099 Praytaksha Kar Bhavan, Pan: Aaac13042F Bkc, Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Yogesh Thar Ar Revenue By : Sh. V. Justine Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Are Directed Against The Separate Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-17

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Thar ARFor Respondent: Sh. V. Justine Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 37Section 37(1)

…ITA No.6244,6245/M/2017, IPCA Health Product Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6245/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2013-14) ICPA Health Products Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Off. 216-219,Adarsh Income tax, Circle-10(1)(1), Industrial Estate, Sahar Mumbai, Road, Chakala, Andheri(E), Vs. Room No. 702, C-10, Mumbai-400099 Praytaksha Kar Bhavan, PAN: AAAC13042F BKC, Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) ( Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Yogesh Thar AR Revenue by : Sh. V. Justine Sr DR Date of hearing : 07.03.2018…

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)

…and is not liable to be applicable in the case of the assessee retrospectively. ITA. No.80/M/16 138/M/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 In this regard, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in DCIT Vs. PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd. (2017) 163 ITD 10 (Mum. Trib.), macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. ADIT (2016) 161 ITD 291 (Mum. Trib.), Syeom formulations India Ltd. (ITA No. 6429/M/2012 (Mum. Trib.) & UCB India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 6681 & 5454/M/2013) (Mum. Trib.) However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. The assessee raised the c…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Noble Medicals BCJC CIT, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus PAN No.AAGFN4356A Applicant Respondent Applicant by Shri Vipul Joshi - Advocate Respondent by Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh –(CIT- DR) Date of hearing: 05/02/2018 Date of order: 05/02/2018 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. CIT-16(3), Mumbai passed under section 26…

M/S Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6806/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 6806/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-40/41, Okhla Industrial Area, Tax, Circle-5(1), Phase-2, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg9446Q Assessee By : Sh. M. S. Syali, Sr. Adv., Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Singh, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.11.2015 Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. M. S. Syali, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37(1)

…r 2013-14 and not for the year under consideration i.e. the assessment year 2011-12. It was also stated that the issue under consideration is covered by the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT-8(2), Mumbai Vs PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd. reported at 163 ITD 10. 4. In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the AO and the ld. DRP, and further submitted that the Circular No. 5/2012 issued by the CBDT was applicable and it was placed before the DRP, therefore, the ld. DRP rightly directed to disallow the honorarium fee paid to the Doctors. It was further submitted that the expenses of…