TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectification. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions as made in the Miscellaneous Application. 3. On the contrary, Ld. Departmental Representatives opposed the submissions and submitted that, what the Ld. Counsel is seeking through the Miscellaneous Application is beyond the scope of the provision of section 254 of the Act. He submitted that there is no apparent mistake on the record. He submitted that the Tribunal has affirmed view of the authorities below that the expenditure is not extended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Now, the assessee is trying to get this view of this Tribunal reviewed under the garb of the present Miscellaneous Application, for seeking rectification of mistake. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The Tribunal at in Para 3.2 decided the issue of allowability of expenditure related to sale and promotion expenditure claim by the assessee by observing as under:- 3.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. As per section 37(1), any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case in hand there is no material suggesting that these payments were made towards commission for referring business to the assessee. Therefore, this decision would not help the assessee. Another decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh is also distinguishable with the facts of the present case as in that case there was a relation between the payment of money and the business purposes. In the case of Dr. T.A. Quereshi vs. CIT, 287 ITR 547 (SC) relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, here also there was a direct nexus between the business of the assessee. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 6429 6428/Mum/2012. In that case also the gift related to the Logo of the company. In the present case the assessee was required to demonstrate the expenditure in relation to business. So far the reasoning given by the AO that the expenditures were prohibited by law, in our considered view, this issue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench. Therefore, in our view the issue requires fresh consideration by the AO. We thus set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and restore the issue to the file of AO for decision afresh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not allowable in view of explanation of Sec. 37(1) read with CBDT Circular which is only clarificatory in nature. Thus, the incurring of the expenditure for the purpose of business is already accepted by the lower authorities. (ii) At page 4, middle Para of the order, it s observed that the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court rendered in case of CIT vs. KAP Scan and Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. 344 ITR 476 which is on payment to commission to private doctors for referring the business for diagnosis whereas in the case in hand there is no material suggesting that these payments were made towards commissioner for referring business towards the assessee. Therefore, this decision would not help the assessee. In making this observation it is ignored that this case is relied by the Ld. CIT(A) at page 12 of its order against the assessee and not relied by the assessee. The Ld. AR of the assessee in his written submission at page 4, Para 8 has distinguished this decision as the case of the assessee is not towards payment of commission to the doctors but for sponsoring the doctors for conference, reimbursement of expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 109649/- 4. CME of doctors 181000/- 138418/- 42582/- 5. Other expenses of doctors 437478/- 334557/- 102921/- Total 2917331/- 2230998/- 686333/- Some examples of expenses debited under the above 5 heads are as follows:- 1. 13/04/2010 Being cheque issued in favour of Dr. Ramesh M. Patel, Gandhinagar for registration charge for DOC conference 16 to 18 April ₹ 2500/- 2. 16/04/2010 Being Cheque issued to Dr. Rajan Agarwal, New Delhi towards reimbursement of book purchase ₹ 5800/- 3. 16/04/2010 Being cheque issued in favour of Dr. Lt. Col. S.K. Mishra for registration charge for DOC conference 16 to 18 April ₹ 1300/- 4. 13/05/2010 Being cheque issued in favour of Sunway Luggage towards the payments of purchase for Dr. Chetan Gajjar, Bhavnagar ₹ 5670/- 5. 14/05/2010 Being cash paid for gift items ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
