Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Shri Vasant Vashrambhai Sapovadia,, ... vs The Assistant Commr. Income ... on 22 October, 2019
cites
Dcit 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs Aristo Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai on 26 July, 2018
He however refers to another co-ordinate bench decision
in Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2016] 161 ITD 291/74taxmann.com 250 (Mum. -
Trib.) holding that the above Board's circular dated 01.08.2012 would not have any retrospective
effect since not operating in assessment years 2010-11.
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(2),, ... vs M/S. Liva Healthcare Ltd. ( Now Cadila ... on 28 December, 2018
"We have heard both the parties. Mr. Soparkar is very fair in pointing out at the outset that this
tribunal's decision in Asstt. CIT v. Liva Healthcare Ltd. [2016] 161 ITD 63/73taxmann.com 171
(Mum. - Trib.) upholding such a disallowance in case of pharmaceutical companies offering free
samples to doctor post introduction of the relevant product in market after establishing end use;
is hit by Section 37(1) explanation.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 vs M/S. Pizi Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. ... on 3 September, 2019
He further quotes another co-ordinate
bench decision in Dy. CIT v. PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd. [2017] 163 ITD 10/78taxmann.com 36
(Mum. - Trib.) distinguishing the above case law in Revenue's favour whilst deleting an identical
disallowance on the ground that such business promotion expenses are allowable as business
expenditure not hit u/s. 37(1) explanation. We afforded ample rebuttal opportunity to the
Revenue. Learned Departmental Representative fails to indicate any distinguishing features
therein. We find that the above latter co-ordinate bench has elaborately discussed all case laws,
1