Tax deduction for doctor freebies fails where payments facilitate conduct prohibited by medical ethics rules.

Expenditure by a pharmaceutical company on freebies to medical practitioners is treated as disallowable under Section 37(1) where the payment facilitates conduct prohibited by law. Explanation 1 bars deduction for any outlay incurred for an offence or for a prohibited purpose, and the medical ethics regulations restricting gifts, hospitality, cash and other benefits to practitioners were read as part of that statutory prohibition. The analysis also treats the CBDT circular as clarificatory and rejects the argument that the absence of a direct penal provision against the payer preserves deductibility. The practical effect is that such freebies cannot be claimed as business expenditure.

---

---

Issues: Whether expenditure incurred by a pharmaceutical company on freebies given to medical practitioners is allowable as a business deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or falls within Explanation 1 as expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law.

Analysis: Section 37(1) is a residuary deduction provision, but Explanation 1 denies deduction where the expenditure is incurred for any purpose that is an offence or prohibited by law. The amended medical ethics regulations prohibited medical practitioners from receiving gifts, travel facilities, hospitality, cash or monetary grants from pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries, and violation exposed the practitioner to statutory sanctions. The Court held that the prohibition on receipt necessarily extended to the giver as well, because allowing the donor to claim a tax deduction would defeat the statutory regime and public policy underlying the regulations. The CBDT circular was treated as clarificatory and consistent with the statutory scheme. The Court rejected the argument that the absence of a direct penal provision against the pharmaceutical company saved the claim, holding that participation in conduct prohibited by law is enough to attract Explanation 1.

Conclusion: The expenditure on freebies to doctors was not deductible under Section 37(1) and was rightly disallowed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory and ethical prohibition against doctors receiving such inducements also barred the assessee from claiming tax deduction for providing them, and the impugned disallowance was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure incurred by an assessee in facilitating conduct that is prohibited by law cannot be treated as allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if the assessee is not itself the direct recipient of the statutory prohibition.

---