9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd submitted that identical issue came before the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided the same in favour of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Petroleum India International [ 2013 (2) TMI 99 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that the object of section 91(1) is to give relief from taxation in India to extent taxes have been paid abroad for relevant previous year and this relief is not dependent upon payment also being made in previous year. We find the said issue i.e. claim of credit for foreign TDS should be allowed in favour of the assessee. - ITA No.407/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 17-12-2019 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For the Revenue : Mrs. Nandita Kanchan ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-12, Pune dated 06.01.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the grounds of appeal on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of gift, travel facility, hospitality or monetary grant from the health pharmaceutical sector industries, the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure being prohibited by law as provided in the explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added the entire amount of ₹ 1,96,67,623/- to the total income of the assessee. 6. That when the matter travelled before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted elaborate written submission reiterating those which has already been made before the Assessing Officer and they are placed on record. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that in assessee s own case on identical issue for assessment year 2010-11, similar disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was upheld u/s.37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the present assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 placing reliance on the order of assessment year 2010-11 had upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 1,96,67,623/- only by reiterating the findings given in the order for assessment year 2010-11 and reproducing the same in his order which is on record. 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee appraised the Bench that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, the Tribunal observed that the assessee further relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case vide ITA No.1532/PUN/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 dated 29.01.2018, the copy of which is placed on record and submitted that the said issue is now covered by the said decision of the Tribunal (supra.) and decided in favour of the assessee. That thereafter, at Para 7 of the said order, the Tribunal extracted the contents of Para 8 and 9 of the order of the Tribunal which is on record. That further, at Para 8 of the Tribunal s order (supra.) for assessment year 2011-12, it was held and observed as follows: 8. Considering the above and following of the rule of consistency, we find the said issue i.e. disallowance of marketing and sale promotion expenses should be allowed in favour of the assessee. The Circulars issued by the Medical Council of India read with Circular issued by the CBDT do not cover the Drug making companies like the present assessee. Following the parity of reasoning, the said issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Thus, the relevant grounds on this issue are allowed. 8. Per c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h claim of tax credit u/s.90/91 withheld by Heritage Pharma labs Inc. came up for adjudication. The appellant filed similar contentions during AY 2011-12. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) basically relied on the Appellate order for assessment year 2011-12 and rejected the claim of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has reproduced the relevant findings of the Appellate order for assessment year 2011-12 in his present order and summarily rejected this ground of appeal raised before him as per reasoning therein which is on record. 12. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.226/PUN/2017 (supra.). The Tribunal in its order at Para 9 has discussed this issue regarding claim of credit for foreign TDS and therein has extracted the written submissions of the assessee. 12.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of JCIT Vs. Petroleum India International, 26 SOT 105 and submitted that identical issue came before the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
