9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier assessment years, no interference is called for. Ground no. 1 is accordingly dismissed. - ITA. No: 537 & 1560/AHD/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2016 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Jagdish, CIT/DR For The Respondent : Shri N.B. Shah, C.A. PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. ITA Nos. 537 1560/Ahd/2012 are appeals by the Revenue preferred against two separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-XI VIII, Ahmedabad dated 21.12.2011 26.04.2012 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09 2009-10 respectively. 2. The substantive grievance of the revenue in ITA No. 537/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 2008-08 which read as under:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. It is created due to carelessness of the assessee. 4. Since in both these impugned appeals, first two grievances are common they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 5. Assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in business of providing Contract Sales Services and also Trading of branded medicines. 6. Assessee entered into contract with Pharma Companies for marketing their products. To carry on its business smoothly, the assessee employs Medical Representatives who visit Doctors and Market the products of Customer for which assessee company receives fees for services either on the basis of time spent or persons deployed. 7. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue was decided in favour of the assessee in Appeal No. CIT(A)-XI/1011/10-11 dated 22.11.2011 for A.Y. 2007-08. The ld. CIT(A) further found that the impugned expenditure has been allowed as revenue expenditure in all the scrutiny assessments made in earlier years. The ld. CIT(A) concluded by holding that the facts as existed in A.Y. 2007-08 are identical to the facts for the year under consideration and accordingly ordered the A.O. to delete the addition of ₹ 70,48,105/-. 12. Aggrieved by this, the revenue is before us. 13. The ld. D.R. strongly relied upon the findings of the A.O. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 14. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical issue arose in A.Y. 2004-05 and the matter travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal has deleted the addition. Following the order of the Tribunal, the ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to delete the impugned addition. 17. Aggrieved by this, the revenue is before us. 18. The ld. D.R. could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the revenue. We find that the Tribunal in Assessee s own case in A.Y. 04-05 has decided this issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant observations of the Tribunal read as under:- Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. We have heard the parties and considered the rival submission. The expenditure was incurred for specialized training, which is for the purpose of carrying on bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate sales. The targets for the company are given and when the same are not achieved, the company is required to pay for nonachievement of targets. If the company achieves the target beyond certain levels, it also gets bonus. Thus, this payment towards non-achievement of targets is nothing but a contractual payment and is allowable expense. It is therefore submitted that the same be allowed. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the royalty and payment for non-achievement of targets are revenue expenditure and very recently, the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) in the case of the company itself has granted the same in A.Y. 2007-08. 22. The aforementioned submission of the assessee was not found acceptable by the A.O. who was of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
