9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke the disallowance when the departmental authorities have accepted that distribution of free samples is a regular business practice and in fact, have not raised any doubt regarding the genuineness of the expenditure. Thus, when the assessee has furnished the required details relating to the expenditure claimed, there is no justifiable reason to disallow even a part of it. On a perusal of material placed before us, it is noticed that the cost incurred by the assessee towards distribution of free samples in these assessment years is much lesser than similar expenditure incurred in the earlier and subsequent assessment years. Thus, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, we hold that no disallowance out of the cost incurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed deduction towards cost of free samples provided to doctors / medical practitioners / others. Being unsatisfied with the evidence furnished by the assessee, the assessing officer disallowed the cost incurred towards free samples in all the assessment years under consideration. Contesting the disallowances, assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority and thereafter before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 21-08-2013, the Tribunal restored the issue to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. In the fresh assessment proceedings, the assessing officer again called upon the assessee to furnish the details of free samples and justify the claim of deduction. In reply to the query raised, though, the assessee furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment years. Thus, she submitted, there is no justifiable reason to disallow even 20% of the expenditure. She further submitted, in case of Johnsons Johnsons (2014) 150 ITD 377 (Mum) while considering identical nature of dispute, the Tribunal has restricted the disallowance to 2% of the claim of the assessee. Thus, she submitted, in worst case, the disallowance should not exceed 2% of the cost incurred by the assessee towards free samples. 7. The learned departmental representative strongly relied upon the observations of the first appellate authority. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessing officer had disallowed 50% of the total cost incurred by the assessee towards f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally visit doctors / medical practitioners to distribute the samples. Therefore, even accepting that the complete address of medical practitioners are not available in few instances, that by itself cannot be a reason to make the disallowance when the departmental authorities have accepted that distribution of free samples is a regular business practice and in fact, have not raised any doubt regarding the genuineness of the expenditure. Thus, when the assessee has furnished the required details relating to the expenditure claimed, there is no justifiable reason to disallow even a part of it. 10. Further, It is relevant to observe, the cost incurred by the assessee towards free samples distributed as a percentage of the total turnover in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
