TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this ground of appeal. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Addition on account of Clinical Support Expenses - HELD THAT:- We find that Ld. CIT(A) while appreciating the facts of the present case had rightly relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench [ 2016 (8) TMI 898 - ITAT MUMBAI] in assessee s own case, wherein identical is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be called for by the AO. Accordingly, this ground is treated as allowed. - I.T.A. No. 6483/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) - - - Dated:- 10-1-2019 - Hon ble Sh. B. R. Baskaran, AM And Hon ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, JM Appellant by : Shri Rajore Satishchandra, Respondentby : Shri Dharmesh Shah, AR ORDER Sandeep Gosain, The present Appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai, dated 10.08.16 for AY 2012-13 on the grounds mentioned herein below:- 1. The Learned CTT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 34,47,825/- on a/c of Employee's contribution to Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue has filed appeal before us on the grounds mentioned herein above. Ground No. 1. 5. This ground raised by the revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 34,47,825/- on a/c of Employee's contribution to Provident Fund, ESIC and Family Pension which barring a few had been paid only a some days before due date of filing the Income Tax Return. 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgment ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Ground No. 2. 7. This ground raised by the revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of₹ 63,13,302/- on account of Clinical Support Expenses. 8. We have heard the counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgment cited by the parties as well as the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Ground No. 3. 9. This ground raised by the revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,29,40,870/- being disallowance made by the A.O. @20% of ₹ 6,47,04,350/- for the reason that most expenses had been incurred in cash and as the claim remained unsubstantiated, element of personal expenditure was implied. 10. We have heard the counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation to substantiate the travelling expenses. At the time of hearing, the Ld A.R invited our attention to page 7 of the paper book and submitted that the AO has made the impugned disallowance without critically analysing the travelling expenses claimed by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee, being a pharma company, has to incur huge travelling expenses on travelling of Sales personnel. He submitted that the assessee has claimed a sum of ₹ 647.04 lakhs as travelling expenses, out of which the expenses incurred by Sales Personnel alone was ₹ 525.29 crores. He submitted that the expenses incurred by sales personnel are exclusively for the purposes of company and hence there cannot be any personal element involved the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
