Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 507 - AT - Income TaxTPA - AMP expenditure - Held that:- As gone through the agreements entered in to by the AE's with the assessee, that in the agreements there is no condition about sharing of AMP, that the agreements talks of using best efforts to market and distribute the product or promote the products in a commercially reasonable manner. In our opinion, these terms do not give any indication that the AE and the assessee had to share AMP expenses. If the AE was benefitted indirectly by the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee, it cannot be held that it had entered into agreement for sharing AMP expenses. Bright Line Method should not have been applied by the TPO. Thus First of all the issue before us is not an assessee that is engaged in distribution and manufacturing of certain goods, so the question of slicing of expense in two portions would not arise. The other part of the argument that matter should be restored back to the file of the AO/TPO as they were following the order of LG [2013 (6) TMI 217 - ITAT DELHI] and did not have benefit of later judgments of the Hon’ble High Court, we would like to mention that matter can be restored back in certain conditions only. Restoration of matters to the AO's is not a tool to give one more opportunity of hearing to the litigants. It is not advisable to prolong the judicial proceedings in the name of fair play. It is not a case where new evidences have been placed on record by the assessee, that were not made available to the AO at the time of original assessment. It is not also a matter wherein some ground of appeal has remained un-adjudicated. There is violation of principles of natural justice. So, we hold that it is not a fit case to be sent back to the TPO for fresh adjudication - Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation on plant and machinery and building to be allowed as relying on assessee's own case[2015 (12) TMI 1673 - ITAT MUMBAI] Disallowance of payment made to doctors(Convention Expenses) - Held that:- The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MAX Hospital, Pitampura (2014 (1) TMI 1829 - DELHI HIGH COURT) has clearly held that MCI could issue guide lines for the Doctors only and that the MCI in its affidavit admitted that it has ‘no jurisdiction’ to pass any order against the ‘Petitioner hospital’. Ethics Committee of MCI is authorised to pass some order about the infrastructure of any hospital. But, as far as corporate entities are concerned MCI cannot issue any guide lines. Therefore, we are not dealing with the issue as to from which AY. the guide lines would be applicable. We would also like to hold that distribution of free samples cannot be treated as violation of Expl. 1 to section 37(1). Additional ground of appeal - allowing consequential depreciation on non compete fee - as argued that while deciding the appeal for the AY. 2002- 03, the Tribunal had directed the AO to allow depreciation on payment made for non compete fee treating the same as capital expenditure. Following the above order of the Tribunal, we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee. Non upholding the adjustment based on BLT on the premises that it was not the most appropriate method - Held that:- While deciding the appeal filed by the assessee, we have held that AMP expenses was not an International transaction. Therefore, the issue of applying BLT as the MAM would not arise. Tribunal had taken the same view while deciding the appeal for the AY. 2010-11. Accordingly, we decide the effective ground of appeal, raised by the AO, against him.
|