Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Eskayef Now Known As Smithkline Beecham ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 20 July, 2000
In Dolphin Laboratories' case [2000] 249 ITR 538, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in consonance with the earlier judicial opinion, on the scope of operation of Section 37(3A) of the Act and maintaining the distinction between "expenditure incurred in connection with distribution of medicines by way of free samples" and "advertising expenses incurred in connection with distribution of literature providing for technical data and results of research activity", held that the latter type of expenses cannot be included for disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Act, Learned counsel for the assessee has placed emphasis on this decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and has submitted that even after the affirmation of the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Eskayef v. CIT , the Calcutta High Court after noticing the said decision, still took the view that a distinction could be drawn between such "an expenditure towards distribution of free medical samples" and "expenses towards medical literature". Learned counsel, drawing support from this decision submits that a distinction should be made between the expenditure incurred in connection with holding of conferences or seminars which are essentially meant to educate the dealers and distributors, from expenditure incurred purely for promoting the products of the company and accordingly urges that an "expenditure incurred towards seminars and all other connected expenditure" incurred in the context of holding seminars, did not attract the provisions of Section 37(3A).
Innosearch Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 November, 1997
In the case of Innosearch Ltd. v. CIT , a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, noticing that the Tribunal itself had come to the conclusion about the expenses incurred in respect of items like danglers, posters and streamers depicting the products of the assessee for display in retail counter shops, being for the purpose of advertisement, and the Tribunal, as a matter of finding of fact having found that as an expenditure on advertisement, declined to answer the question on the premise that no question of law arose, as the conclusion of the Tribunal was based on fact. The view taken by the Tribunal was not disturbed and the High Court declined to answer the reference on this aspect as one not involving a question of law. However, in the instant case, what we notice is that though the Tribunal has based its conclusion on a finding of fact, the question as to whether the provisions of Section 37(3A) are attracted to a situation of this nature and the activity of the assessee constitutes an activity of the nature referred to in Sections 37(3A) and 37(3B) of the Act, is a mixed question of fact and law, We proceed to examine the matter and give our answer as under :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Andhra Pradesh Small Scale Industrial ... on 5 March, 1987
In CIT v. A. P. Small Scale Industries Development Corporation , a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was of the view that expenses incurred, by an assessee towards printing of brochures and information material with the object of promoting industrial development in the State of Andhra Pradesh, did not amount to an expenditure in the nature of an advertisement expenditure attracting the provisions of Section 37(3A) of the Act and as such took the view that the Revenue could not have disallowed 20 per cent, of such expenses. The Andhra Pradesh High Court noticed in this case that the assessee was a Small Scale Industries Development Corporation, a public sector undertaking owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and did not in the first instance carry on any commercial activity but was essentially a service organisation. The brochures and information material were to encourage the participation of entrepreneurs and small scale industrialists in the industrial development of the State and in this view of the matter, the court held that it cannot be construed as an expenditure in the nature of an advertising expenditure. Here it was found as a matter of fact that the expenditure was not in the nature of an advertising expense as such.
Smith Kline & French [India] Ltd.Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 April, 1996
In the case of Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd.'s case [1992] 193 ITR 582, a Division Bench of this court was of the view that the expenditure incurred towards distribution of free samples of medicines not confined to the introductory stage of new medicine, but prolonged over a period of time, was an "expenditure" meant more to promote the product and amounting to an "expenditure" in the nature of an advertisement and sales promotion.
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Griffen Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 January, 2000
In Dolphin Laboratories' case [2000] 249 ITR 538, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in consonance with the earlier judicial opinion, on the scope of operation of Section 37(3A) of the Act and maintaining the distinction between "expenditure incurred in connection with distribution of medicines by way of free samples" and "advertising expenses incurred in connection with distribution of literature providing for technical data and results of research activity", held that the latter type of expenses cannot be included for disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Act, Learned counsel for the assessee has placed emphasis on this decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and has submitted that even after the affirmation of the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Eskayef v. CIT , the Calcutta High Court after noticing the said decision, still took the view that a distinction could be drawn between such "an expenditure towards distribution of free medical samples" and "expenses towards medical literature". Learned counsel, drawing support from this decision submits that a distinction should be made between the expenditure incurred in connection with holding of conferences or seminars which are essentially meant to educate the dealers and distributors, from expenditure incurred purely for promoting the products of the company and accordingly urges that an "expenditure incurred towards seminars and all other connected expenditure" incurred in the context of holding seminars, did not attract the provisions of Section 37(3A).
Dy. C.I.T. (Asstt) vs Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd on 10 January, 2001
1