Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1514 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of low gross profit rate - Held that:- The accounts of the Assessee cannot be rejected merely based on the perception of the AO that the Assessee has declared low profit margin for certain projects when Books of Accounts have not been rejected. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of expenses on samples - expenditure incurred towards distribution of free samples to doctors/medical practitioners - Held that:- Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015 (12) TMI 1172 - ITAT DELHI] has examined the provisions of Medical Council of India and after analyzing the same Hon'ble Tribunal has held that there is a clear distinction between the free samples, gifts, travel facilities, hospitality and cash or monetary grants. The disallowance made by the authorities below should be deleted. Allowability of expenses on business promotion expenses - Held that:- We delete the addition of ₹ 18,45,317/- whereas we sustain the disallowance of ₹ 1,27,924/- which the assessee has debited under the head marketing and business promotion expenses but which in fact are installments for repayment of loan. In view of the above, ground No. 8 is partly allowed. Disallowance of advertisement expenses - Held that:- From the ledger account of such expenses, it is apparent that all the payments have been made through cheques and not even a single payment has been made in cash. Therefore, the findings of the Assessing Officer that the expenses were not genuine, are not correct and in view of the above, we allow ground taken by the assessee. Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- Such payments received from sister concern which have been credited in the assessee’s account and similarly debited in the books of account of the sister concern, cannot be said to be ingenuine and unexplained credits. Therefore, the addition u/s 68 is not at all justified
|