TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel -1, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hon'ble DRP') on the following grounds, each of which are without prejudice to one another: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned AO/ Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing) - 2(3) (TPO')/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in fact and in law: Grounds 1. erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs. 86,47,57,590 as against Rs. 36,01,57,620 as computed by the Appellant; Transfer pricing grounds on Advertising, Marketing and Promotion CAMP') adjustment 2. erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 23,58,61,099 on account of AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant; AMP is not an international transaction 3. erred in considering the function of AMP as a separate purported international transaction for the purpose of transfer pricing adjustment; 4. erred in ignoring that the alleged AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant represents only domestic transactions undertaken with third parties/ employees and are outside the purview of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act and the Rules; No scientific approach while selecting comparable companies for bright line test 14. without prejudice to the above, having accepted the comparables adopted by the Appellant for benchmarking import of trading goods from the AEs using TNMM analysis, erred in not accepting the same set of comparables for benchmarking the AMP expenses; 15. Without prejudice to the above, erred in cherry picking up of inappropriate comparable companies on an ad hoc basis and not having similar product/ brand profile as the Appellant and selected comparable companies of the preceding year without conducting a fresh search and thereby violated the principles of natural justice; Certain expenses are not in nature of AMP expenses 16. without prejudice to the above, even if impugned transaction is considered as international transaction and liable for transfer pricing provisions, there could not be any adjustment as entire alleged AMP expenses are in the nature of routine business expenses or selling expenses and thereby no transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenses is justified; 17. without prejudice to the above, erred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and not to a medical device company, like the Appellant; 26. erred in holding that these expenses are disallowable in view of Circular no. 05/2012 dated 1 August 2012 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT circular') read with the amendment made by the MCI Regulations; 27. erred in not appreciating the fact that the MCI regulations were not applicable to the Appellant and accordingly, the question of making any disallowance under the CBDT circular did not arise; 28. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the MCI Regulations are binding and applicable only to medical practitioners and accordingly, the medical device companies are not bound by these regulations; 29. without prejudice to the above, erred in not appreciating the fact that as per the CBDT circular, only that expenditure which is incurred in contravention of the MCI regulations is to be disallowed and whether or not there is any contravention of the MCI regulations is a matter of fact which can be decided only by the MCI and not by the AO. Grants to medical associations 30. without prejudice to the above, erred in not appreciating the fact that o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....health care professionals; Gifts 36. without prejudice to the above, erred in not appreciating the fact that out of the convention expenses of Rs. 27,11,48,553, gifts are provided to HCPs of a nominal value of Rs. 1,43,095 and with the intention of brand recall and creation of goodwill which does not affect their independence and objectivity, accordingly, the same does not amount to gifts under the MCI Regulations; Expenses for travel facilities 37. without prejudice to the above, erred in not appreciating the fact that out of the convention expenses of Rs. 27,11,48,553, expenses for travel facilities of Rs. 16,59,901 was incurred for various HCPs wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the Assessee and accordingly, the same is outside the purview of the MCI Regulations and CBDT circular; 38. without prejudice to the above, erred in not appreciating the fact that the payment for travel facilities had been paid to travel agents/ independent third party service providers and not to medical practitioners and accordingly, the same is outside the purview of the MCI Regulations and CBDT circular; Registration charges....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... LEGAL GROUND OF APPEAL On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 10(1)(1) ('AO'); Consequential depreciation on non-compete fee of Rs. 4,73,00,000 47. Erred in not granting consequential depreciation on non-compete fees as the same is held to be capital in nature in AY 2002-03." 3. Ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and, therefore, require no adjudication. 4. The issue raised in Ground nos. 3 to 23 is in respect of Advertising , Marketing and Promotion (AMP) Expenses that AMP is not international transactions. The learned AR submitted before the Bench that the issue raised in these grounds is fully covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench, vide order dated 02.05.2018, in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1246/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 and therefore the same the said issue should be decided following the order of the coordinate bench. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the TPO and grounds of appeal. 5. We have heard the both the parties and have gone through the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1246/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2011-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s part of distribution work, that as per the TP study the assessee had earned an OPM of 5.39%,as against 4.22% earned by the comparable companies, that it had considered itself a distribution company, that it was carrying out marketing and distribution activities in India, that sales commission, selling and distribution expenses, product give-away and samples and convention expenses were part of sales promotion expenses ,that the TP study by the assessee was incorrect and insufficient. Though he did not reject the TNMM study with reference to distribution function. But, he held that AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee were the IT.s, that it had created brand awareness in its territorial domain, that the ultimate benefit of the activity did not remain with the assessee only, that it passed it on to the parent company in the form of better brand value for its products. Finally,he determined the ALP of reimbursement for brand promotion and marketing intangibles at Rs. 38.72 crores. The AO in his draft order proposed for said addition. 3.2.Aggrieved by order of the TPO/AO, the assessee filed objections before the DRP. Vide its directions, dated 16/12/2014,the DRP confirme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter should be restored back to the file of the TPO. He referred to the case of Luxottica India Eyeware Pvt. Ltd.((ITA/1492/Del/2015 dtd. 26. 05.2017 In his rejoinder, the AR stated that after a series of order/judgments of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Courts with regard to AMP expenses there was no need to follow the orders of the earlier years as at that time there was not much clarity on the subject. 3.4.We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the TPO had held that assessee should have been compensated by its AE for the AMP expenditure incurred by it. We have gone through the agreements entered in to by the AE.s with the assessee, that in the agreements there is no condition about sharing of AMP, that the agreements talks of using best efforts to market and distribute the product or promote the products in a commercially reasonable manner. In our opinion, these terms do not give any indication that the AE and the assessee had to share AMP expenses. Secondly, if the AE was benefitted indirectly by the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee, it cannot be held that it had entered into agreement for sharing AMP expenses. We are also of the opinion that B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the transaction in dispute is not covered by the provisions of section 92B or 92B(1)of the Act and hence is not an IT. Once it goes out of the ambit of being an IT,FAR analysis of comparables or any other adjustment will and cannot come in picture. Folk wisdom of rural India the says that mother(Maa)is must for existence of her sister(Mausi).Similarly the existence of an IT is the pre-requisite of applying the provisions of chapter X of the Act. The assessee from the very beginning was arguing that it is not an IT, but, the TPO and the DRP did not deal with the core issue. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter should not be remitted back to the file of the TPO/ AO. Litigation has to be put to an end at some stage. Judicial time of every authority, including the TPO/DRP,is very precious and it should not be wasted for dealing with mere academic arguments. The recourse of remanding of matters/issue to the AO.s has to resorted rarely and selectively. In the case before us, no reasonable cause has been shown to justify the setting aside the issue. Here, we would also like to refer to the case of Bosch and Lomb (supra) wherein all the arguments raised by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement in relation to' the relevant transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise, or the terms of the relevant transaction are determined in substance between such other person and the associated enterprise." 56.Thus, under Section 92B(1) an 'international transaction' means- (a) a transaction between two or more AEs, either or both of whom are nonresident (b) the transaction is in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property or provision of service or lending or borrowing money or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, incomes or losses of such enterprises, and (c) shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more AEs for allocation or apportionment or contribution to the any cost or expenses incurred or to be incurred in connection- with the - benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to one or more of such enterprises. 57. Clauses (b) and (c) above cannot be read disjunctively. Even if resort is had to the residuary part of clause (b) to contend that the AMP spend of BLI is "any other transaction h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ext of acquisition of shares of Zenotech Laboratory Ltd. by the Ranbaxy Group. The question that was examined was whether at the relevant time the Appellant, i.e., 'Daiichi Sankyo Company and Ranbaxy were "acting in concert" within the meaning of Regulation 20(4) (b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997. In. para 44, it was observed as under: "The other limb of the concept requires two or more persons joining together with the shared common objective and purpose of substantial acquisition of shares etc. of a- certain target company, There can be no "persons acting in concert" unless there is a shared common objective or purpose between two or more persons of substantial acquisition of shares etc. of the target company, For, de hors the element of the shared common Objective' or purpose the idea of "person acting in concert" is as meaningless as criminal conspiracy without any agreement to commit a criminal offence. The idea of "persons acting in concert" is not about a fortuitous relationship coming into existence by accident or chance. The relationship' can come into being on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the benefit of such AMP expenses would also encure to the AE is itself self sufficient to infer the existence of an international transaction has been negatived by the Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) as under: xxxxxx 68. The above submissions proceed purely on surmises and conjectures and if accepted as such will lead to sending the tax authorities themselves on a wild-goose chase of what can at best be described as a 'mirage'. First of all, there has to be a clear statutory mandate for such an* exercise. The Court is unable to find one. To the question whether there is any 'machinery' provision for determining the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses, Mr. Srivastava only referred to Section 92F (ii) which defines ALP to mean a price "which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than AEs in uncontrolled conditions" ,Since the reference is to 'price' and to 'uncontrolled conditions' it implicitly brings into play the BLT. In other words, it emphasises that where the price is something other than what would be paid or charged by one entity from another in uncon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end that the Indian entity should be compensated for? 63. Further, in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. '(supra) the Court further explained the absence of a 'machinery provision qua AMP expenses by the following analogy: "75. As an analogy; and for-no other purpose; in the- context of a domestic transaction involving two or more related parties, reference may' be made to Section 40 A (2) (a) under which certain types of expenditure incurred by way of payment to related parties is not deductible where the AO is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods." In such event, so much of the expenditure as is so considered by him to be excessive or unreasonable shall not be allowed as a deduction." The AO in such an instance deploys the 'best judgment' assessment as a device to disallow what he considers to be an excessive expenditure. There is no corresponding 'machinery' provision in Chapter X which enables' an AO to determine what should be the fair 'compensation' an Indian entity would be entitled to if it is found' that there is an International transaction in that regard. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itions only. Restoration of matters to the AO.s is not a tool to give one more opportunity of hearing to the litigants .It is not advisable to prolong the judicial proceedings in the name of fair play. It is not a case where new evidences have been placed on record by the assessee, that were not made available to the AO at the time of original assessment. It is not also a matter wherein some ground of appeal has remained unadjudicated. T here is violation of principles of natural justice. So, we hold that it is not a fit case to be sent back to the TPO for fresh adjudication." Considering the above, we decide the first effective ground of appeal (GOA-1-16)in favour the assessee. Respectfully, following the above, we allow grounds no.2-9,raised by the assessee." Facts and circumstances being similar, respectfully following the said order of the Co-ordinate Bench, we decide ground nos. 3 to 23 in favour of the assessee. 6. The issue raised in Ground no.24 is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 93,686/- on account of depreciation on building. Before us, learned AR brought to our notice that the issue is covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench, vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) has allowed the assessee's ground by placing reliance on the decisions in case of CIT v Oswal Agro Mills (197 Taxman 25) (HC), Swati Synthetics Ltd v ITA (38 SOT 208) (Mumbai ITAT) and Allied Photographics (8 SOT 318) (Mumbai ITAT). The Department has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2007-08. However, the aforementioned issue was not taken in appeal by the Department before ITAT. We also found that Department accepted CIT(A) order for AY 2002-03. The CIT(A) has accepted the principle that with the introduction of concept of WDV of block of assets, the depreciation is allowable not on individual items but depending upon date of acquisition and put to use of the asset. Further, CIT(A) was in agreement with Assessee's view that section 38(2) deals with usage of assets for non-business purposes and does not refer to assets partly used during the year for business purposes. Accordingly, CIT(A) has allowed the depreciation claimed on plant and machinery during AY 2002-03. The Department has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2007-08. However, the aforementioned issue was not taken in appeal by the Department before ITAT. In view of the above,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made to doctors(Convention Expenses)amounting to Rs. 17.23 crores.We find that identical issue was deliberated upon and decided by the Tribunal in ITA/1600/Mum/2015(supra).Relevant portion is reproduced here: "During the assessment proceedings ,the AO found that the assessee had debited Rs. 13.26 crores ,in its books of accounts, under the head invention expenses. He called for detail in that regard. After considering the same, he referred to and relied on the amendments to MCI Act. He held that amendment was effective from 10/12/2009,that same was applicable to expenses incurred by the assessee, that expenses incurred on or after 10/12/09 were in violation of MCI guidelines, that same were not allowable. Finally, he made disallowance of Rs. 6.02 crores. 5.1.The assessee filed objections before the DRP and referred to Circular No.05 of 2012 and case of KAP Scan and Diagnostic Centre(344 ITR 476).After considering the available material, it held that expenditure of Rs. 5.93 crores was related to education grants to medical association for organising conference and seminars(Rs. 2.69 crores),printing and equipment hire charges (Rs. 16. 59lakhs) accomodation expenses(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he earlier years also. 5.3.1.Before proceeding further we would like to refer to certain matters that deal with the issue under consideration. First among them is the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of MAX Hospital, Pitampura v/s. Medical Council of India[W.P.(C) 1334/2013,dtd. 10/01/2014].Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follow: "6.The Petitioner's grievance is twofold. Firstly, that since the Medical Council of India (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the Regulations) have been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 20-A read with Section 33 (m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, these regulations do not govern or have any concern with the facilities, infrastructure or running of the Hospitals and secondly, that the Ethics Committee of the MCI acting under the Regulations had no jurisdiction to pass any direction or judgment on the infrastructure of any hospital which power rests solely with the concerned State Govt. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner hospital is governed by the Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1953. It is urged that in fact, an inspection w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that such payments are specifically prohibited w.e.f. 10.12.2009 by the Medical Council of India (MCI), which is the competent authority, and therefore, the said expenses are illegal and consequently not allowable as per the Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 22,99,72,607/- being freebies given by the assessee to doctors observing that the prohibition by IMA is on medical practitioners and not applicable to Pharma companies without appreciating that the Prohibition of IMA is to curb the malpractices in the medical profession and equally binding on both medical practitioners and Pharma companies? 3.The appellant prays that the order of the CIT (A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored." We are reproducing the relevant portion of the order which reads as under: 2.The brief facts of the case qua the issue raised in the grounds of appeal are that, the assessee is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the business of providing Pharma marketing consultancy and detailing servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of drugs. Free samples are given of smaller size, wherein it is marked as "physician sample not for sale". Various other expenditure under the aforesaid head, have been elaborately explained and illustrated by the assessee in its reply dated, 27.12.2012 before AO. The relevant portion of the reply has been incorporated by the AO from pages 3 to 6 of the assessment order. Regarding the applicability of CBDT Circular No.5 of 2012 (supra), wherein the CBDT has referred to amendment to the "Indian Medical Council Regulations, 2002", brought from 10.12.2009, imposing prohibition of medical practitioner and their professional associations from taking any gift, travel facility, hospitality, cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries, the assessee submitted that firstly, cost of free samples, KAM expenses, CRM expenses are not prohibited under any law and, secondly, the CBDT Circular cannot have retrospective effect so as to be made applicable in the assessment year 2010-11 as the Circular is dated 01.08.2012. As required by the AO, the assessee also segregated expenses incurred after 10.12.2009, i.e., the date of amendment brought in the Indian Me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istered medical practitioners only. Chapter 6 of the said regulation/notification deals with unethical acts, whereby a physician or medical practitioners shall not aid or abet or commit any of the acts illustrated in clause 6.1 to 6.7 of the said regulation which shall be construed as unethical. Clause 6.8 has been added (by way of amendment dated 10.12.2009) in terms of notification published on 14.12.2009 in Gazette of India. The said clause reads as under:- xxxxx 6. On a plain reading of the aforesaid notification, which has been heavily relied upon by the department, it is quite apparent that the code of conduct enshrined therein is meant to be followed and adhered by medical practitioners/doctors alone. It illustrates the various kinds of conduct or activities which a medical practitioner should avoid while dealing with pharmaceutical companies and allied health sector industry. It provides guidelines to the medical practitioners of their ethical codes and moral conduct. Nowhere the regulation or the notification mentions that such a regulation or code of conduct will cover pharmaceutical companies or health care sector in any manner. The department has no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctitioners only and not for pharmaceutical companies. Here the maxim of "Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius" is clearly applicable, that is, if a particular expression in the statute is expressly stated for particular class of assessee then by implication what has not been stated or expressed in the statute has to be excluded for other class of assessee. If the Medical Council regulation is applicable to medical practitioners then it cannot be made applicable to Pharma or allied health care companies. If section 37(1) is applicable to an assessee claiming the expense then by implication, any impairment caused by Explanation1 will apply to that assessee only. Any impairment or prohibition by any law/regulation on a different class of person/assessee will not impinge upon the assessee claiming the expenditure under this section. 7.Before us the learned CIT DR strongly relied upon the fact that CBDT Circular, while clarifying the applicability of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) on medical practitioners and pharmaceutical companies have interpreted that Indian Medical Council Regulation is applicable for pharmaceutical companies also. He also brought to our notice that anoth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny provisions under the Indian Medical Council Regulations. The CBDT cannot provide casus omissus to a statute or notification or any regulation which has not been expressly provided therein. The CBDT can tone down the rigours of law and ensure a fair enforcement of the provisions by issuing circulars and by clarifying the statutory provisions. CBDT circulars act like 'contemporanea expositio' in interpreting the statutory provisions and to ascertain the true meaning enunciated at the time when statute was enacted. However the CBDT in its power cannot create a new impairment adverse to an assessee or to a class of assessee without any sanction of law. The circular issued by the CBDT must confirm to tax laws and for purpose of giving administrative relief or for clarifying the provisions of law and cannot impose a burden on the assessee, leave alone creating a new burden by enlarging the scope of a different regulation issued under a different act so as to impose any kind of hardship or liability to the assessee. In any case, it is trite law that the CBDT circular which creates a burden or liability or imposes a new kind of imparity, same cannot be reckoned retrospectively.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... articles, as pointed out by the assessee before the authorities below and also before us are very cheap and low cast articles which bears the name of assessee and it is purely for the promotion of its product, brand reminder, etc. These articles cannot be reckoned as freebies given to the doctors. Even the free sample of medicine is only to prove the efficacy and to establish the trust of the doctors on the quality of the drugs. This again cannot be reckoned as freebies given to the doctors but for promotion of its products. The pharmaceutical company, which is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products, can promote its sale and brand only by arranging seminars, conferences and thereby creating awareness amongst doctors about the new research in the medical field and therapeutic areas, etc. Every day there are new developments taking place around the world in the area of medicine and therapeutic, hence in order to provide correct diagnosis and treatment of the patients, it is imperative that the doctors should keep themselves updated with the latest developments in the medicine and the main object of such conferences and seminars is to update the do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o generate more and more business and profits for the assessee company. The Tribunal also recorded the fact that the spouse of the doctors also accompanied the doctors for overseas trips to Istanbul and expenses were incurred for cruise travels to island, gala dinner, cocktails, gala entertainment etc. of such doctors. In assessee's case it is an admitted fact that expenses have not been incurred for the purpose personal benefit/enjoyment of the doctors or their spouses. In the case of Liva, the question as to whether such IMC Regulations can be applicable to Pharma Companies was not argued before the Hon'ble Bench. He reiterated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Max Hospital (supra) and the Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Syncom (supra) have held that such IMC Regulations apply only to medical practitioners. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Liva Healthcare Ltd. (ITA 847/Mum/2012) for A.Y. 2008-09, has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee. However, in A.Y. 2009-10, Hon'ble Tribunal while noting the fact that consistency has to be adopted, distinguished the order of A.Y. 2008-09 as under: "The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the same were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 13.Apart from the aforesaid distinguishing features as highlighted by the learned senior counsel, we find that on the facts itself in the case of Liva Healthcare (2009-2010) (supra), there was a clear cut material on record that the Doctors along with their spouses were taken to foreign tours and cruise travel etc., in lieu of expected favours from doctors. In the light of these facts and material the Tribunal has decided the issue against the assessee by not following the earlier year precedence and subsequent year orders of the same assessee. As brought on record before us, we find that similar issue of allowance of such expenditure in the case of pharmaceutical companies has been decided in favour of the assessee, in the case of UCB India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No. 6681/Mum/2013 order dated 13.05.2016, wherein it was held that CBDT circular cannot have a retrospective effect. This judgment was lost sight of by the bench. In any case on careful perusal of the Tribunal order in the case of Liva Healthcare (supra) we find that the Tribunal though has incorporated the relevant provisions and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... samples u/s. 37. In the background of such claim the Hon'ble Apex court held that, if the expenditure falls within the bare minimum it will not be caught by subsection (3A) of section 37. On the contrary, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that physicians samples are necessary to ascertain the efficacy of medicine and introduce it in the market for circulation and it is only by this method the purpose is achieved. In such cases giving a physician samples for reasonable period is essential to the business of manufacture and sale of medicine. It is only if a particular medicine has been introduced by the market and its uses are established then giving of free samples could only be the measure of sale/ promotion and development would thus be hit by subsection (3A). Said decision no way prohibits the nature of expenditure which has been incurred in the case of the assessee. Therefore, such a reference to a Hon'ble Apex Court decision is not germane to the issue involved. Thus, in our opinion, the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal is clearly distinguishable and cannot be held to be applicable and also we have already given our independent finding as to allowability of expenses in the ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, Pitampura (supra)has clearly held that MCI could issue guide lines for the Doctors only and that the MCI in its affidavit admitted that it has 'no jurisdiction' to pass any order against the 'Petitioner hospital'. Ethics Committee of MCI is authorised to pass some order about the infrastructure of any hospital. But, as far as corporate entities are concerned MCI cannot issue any guide lines. Therefore, we are not dealing with the issue as to from which AY. the guide lines would be applicable. We would also like to hold that distribution of free samples cannot be treated as violation of Expl.1 to section 37(1). 5.5.We would also like to prefer to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of MAX Hospital, Pitampura and the above referred two orders of the Tribunal i.e. PHL Pharma P Ltd.(supra)and Syncom Formulations(supra)over the order of Ochoa Lab. (supra). Accordingly ,third effective ground of appeal(Gs.OA 20-32)is decided in favour of the assessee." In view of above discussion, we decide Grounds no.11-29 in favour of the assessee. The issue at hand being similar to one as decided by the coordinate bench in assessee....