TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee's appeal for the year 2003-04 in ITA 1641/Mds/2016. The first ground of appeal is with regard to re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is challenging the re-opening assessment on the ground that there is a change of opinion. The learned counsel for the assessee very fairly submitted that the assessment was re-opened within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The learned counsel further submitted that he is placing reliance on the ground raised before this Tribunal. 3. We heard Shri A.V.Sreekanth, the learned representative for the department also. According to the learned department repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05 and this Tribunal found that a similar issue was decided against the assessee by this Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01 in ITA No.369/Mds/2009 dated 16.07.2010. Accordingly, an identical issue was disallowed by this Tribunal in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly, the same is confirmed. 6. Now coming to the Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, the issue arises for consideration is disallowance of gift said to be given to the medical practitioners for promoting / marketing the products manufactured b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oners who have received the gift from the assessee. 7. We heard Shri A.V.Sreekanth, the learned department representative also. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of medical and health care products. In the course of its business activity, the assessee claims that it gave gift to the medical practitioners and professional associates for marketing the drug and other medical products manufactured by the assessee. The question arises for consideration is whether the cost of the gift can be allowed as expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act while computing the tax of an income tax. Apparently, the gift was given to the medical practitioners and professional associates for prescribing the drugs and medica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all. 8. Moreover, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution is not a mere animal existence. The citizens of this country have a right to lead a dignified life and right to have health care from qualified medical practitioners. Such a right guaranteed under the constitution cannot be defeated by pharmaceutical companies by giving gift to the medical practitioners for prescribing the drugs manufactured by them. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that giving gift to the medical practitioners for promoting or marketing the products manufactured by the pharmaceutical company with an intention to abate the medical practitioners to prescribe the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said to be entered into between the assessee and M/s.T.T.Krishnamachari & Co., a partnership firm, the assessee obtained a license to use the logo (ttk). The assessee has paid 0.5% of the sales as logo charges during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.2030/Mds/2011, allowed the claim of the assessee. According to the learned representative, the logo charges paid by the assessee is not for business purposes and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. 10. We heard Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, the learned counsel for the assessee also. It is not in dispute that the logo (ttk) owned by M/s.T.T.Krishnamachari & Co., a partner....