2019 (5) TMI 1643 - AT - Income Tax

Advertising , Marketing and Promotion (AMP) Expenses - Bright Line Method - HELD THAT:- The agreements entered in to by the AEs 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. Secondly, 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. We are also of the opinion that Bright Line Method should not have been applied by the TPO.

Grounds is fully covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in [2018 (5) TMI 507 - ITAT MUMBAI] holding that and therefore the same the said issue should be decided following the order of the coordinate bench.

Disallowance of depreciation on building - HELD THAT:- Once the concept of block of assets was brought into effect from AY 1989- 90 onwards, then depreciation is allowable on the aggregate of WDV of all the assets in the block at beginning of the Financial year alongwith the additions made to the assets in the subject AY. The individual asset losses its identity for depreciation. Respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in [2018 (5) TMI 507 - ITAT MUMBAI] , we decide the issue in favour of the assessee

Disallowance in respect of payment made to Doctors - free samples - MCI guidelines - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that the MCI guidelines are applicable to the professionals i.e. Doctors only. They do not and cannot govern the other tax entities like Drug manufacturing or drug distributing Companies or individuals other than the doctors, or HUF,s., or Firms etc. MCI, as a body can formulate policy for the Doctors. The assessee is not a practicing professional. So, any guidelines issued by it cannot decide the allowability or otherwise of an expenditure under the Act. Income tax Act is a code in itself and business income an assessee has to be assessed and taxed as envisaged by the provisions of the Act.

The issue at hand being similar to one as decided by the coordinate bench in assessee own case[2018 (5) TMI 507 - ITAT MUMBAI] and also squarely covered by ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi in MAX HOSPITAL, PITAMPURA VERSUS MCI [2014 (1) TMI 1829 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Rajasthan High Courts in DR. ANIL GUPTA VERSUS ACIT [2017 (12) TMI 931 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] respectively , we are therefore inclined to uphold the order of CIT(A).

Depreciation on non-compete fee - held to be capital in nature in A.Y. 2002-03 - HELD THAT:- It was 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.