Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Lifeline Biotech Limited, New Delhi vs Ito, Ward-15(3), New Delhi on 27 April, 2018 cites

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S Kap Scan & Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd on 3 December, 2010

Another strong reference has been made to the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 92, wherein commission was paid to the private doctors for referring the patients for diagnosis to the assessee company. In background of these facts and issues involved, the Hon'ble High Court held that said payment of commission is wrong and is opposed to be a ITA No. 5727/Del/2017 8 public policy. It should be discouraged as it is not a fair practice. The ratio of said decision cannot be applied on the facts of the present case because there is no violation of any law or anything which is opposed to public policy.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 36 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Eskayef Now Known As Smithkline Beecham ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 20 July, 2000

Similarly, there is reference to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eskayef (Now Known as Smithkline Beecham) Pharmaceuticals (India) Limited v. CIT (2000) 111 Taxman 561(SC), which was given in context of Section 37(3A) of the Act. In the said case the assessee had claimed expenditure on distribution of physician's samples u/s. 37. In the background of such claim the Hon'ble Apex court held that, if the expenditure falls within the bare minimum it will not be caught by subsection (3A) of section 37. On the contrary, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that physicians samples are necessary to ascertain the efficacy of medicine and introduce it in the market for circulation and it is only by this method the purpose is achieved. In such cases giving a physician samples for reasonable period is essential to the business of manufacture and sale of medicine. It is only if a particular medicine has been introduced by the market and its uses are established then giving of free samples could only be the measure of sale/ promotion and development would thus be hit by subsection (3A). Said decision no way prohibits the nature of expenditure which has been incurred in the case of the assessee. Therefore, such a reference to a Hon'ble Apex Court decision is not germane to the issue involved. Thus, in our opinion, the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal is clearly distinguishable and cannot be held to be applicable and also we have already given our independent finding as to allowability of expenses in the hands of the assessee as business expenditure."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Radha Swami Satsang vs Income-Tax Officer on 26 April, 1982

In view of the above, he pointed out that in the above decision for A.Y. 2009- 10 in the case of Liva Healthcare, there was a specific finding of a fact that no details have been filed with respect to any seminar has been conducted for doctors and that the trips were directed towards leisure and entertainment of doctors and their spouses. This was a distinguishable feature for the Hon'ble Tribunal to take a contrary view from A.Y. 2008-09.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 108 - Full Document
1