Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2855 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Aishika Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2019 TaxPub(DT) 3042 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1403 (SC)
REFERRED Solvay Pharma India Ltd. with Abbott India Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0234 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Sadhana Stocks & Securities (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0071 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5413 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4390 (Ahd-Trib)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4058 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4015 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. v. DCIT 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1625 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0344 (SC)
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. PHL Pharma (P) Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0192 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Asstt. CIT v. Liva Healthcare Ltd. 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4099 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2834 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2516 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Aditya Medisales Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1667 (Ahd-Trib)
REFERRED Geojit Investment Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3983 (Coch-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2014 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1727 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Bhartia Industries Ltd. v. CIT 2011 TaxPub(DT) 2017 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0333 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED Ambika Agro Suppliers v. Income Tax Officer 2005 TaxPub(DT) 0199 (Pune-Trib)
REFERRED Jagdish Kumar Gulati v. CIT 2004 TaxPub(DT) 1606 (All-HC)
REFERRED Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC)
The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0401 (Mum-Trib)


Section 263

Professional fees paid to doctors was regular consultancy fees and not any freebees and, therefore, same was rightly allowed as deductible under section 37(1) and, therefore, on this count assessment order could not be treated as erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests of revenue.

Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Professional fees paid to doctors -

Pr.CIT invoked jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that AO failed to carry out enquiries as regards nature of professional fees paid to doctors and further allowability of expenses as deduction under section 37(1). Assessee contended that payments were made to doctors on regular consultancy fees and not relating to freebees. Held: It was duty of Pr. CIT to establish that concerned payments were in fact freebees and not regular consultation fees, without actually finding that these were freebees and payment were in violation of conditions specified in Circular No. 5 of 2012, he proceeded to annual assessment order. Further, payment made to doctors by pharmaceutical companies and allied healthcare industries not in violating of Circualr No. 5 of 2012. It is applicbale only to the practising doctors. As such Pr.CIT had not clearly brought on record that payments were actually in contravention of circular and provision of section 37(1) and, therefore, assessment order could not be treated as erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests of revenue.


FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2013-14



'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : /