EISAI PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ` DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. It also found that the Assessing Officer failed to properly verify the expenses claimed by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses claimed by the assessee, including honorarium to doctors, travel, and promotional activities, citing violations of the Indian Medical Council (IMC) Regulations and CBDT Circular No. 5/2012. The assessee contended these expenses were for business purposes and the circular was not applicable.
What were the issues?
Whether expenses incurred for honorarium, travel, and promotional activities for doctors are admissible business expenses, and the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 to the assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Addl. CIT20 citing74 Taxmann.com 250 · 2016 · ITAT
- Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT17 citing85 Taxmann.com 354 · 2017 · ITAT
- 1. M/s. Solvay Pharma India Ltd. v. PCIT12 citing89 Taxmann.com 249 · 2018 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER
PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’]and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).
The grounds of appeal
filed by the Revenue read as under:
1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer with regard to honorarium lo doctors, travel and stay Eisai Pharmaceuticals facilities of doctors in connection with conferences/seminars, distribution of books, expenses on participating in exhibitions/sponsorships for conferences and provision of expenses included in advertisement and promotional expenses of Rs.1,13,16,311 under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the premise that the said expenditure has been incurred for purposes which are prohibited by law.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant has not incurred expenditure for participating in exhibitions or installation of stalls rather it was a cash sponsorship prohibited by Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.
3. The learned CIT(A)erred in not appreciating that the Circular No. 5/2012 dated 1 August 2012 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes has prospective effect and accordingly, the same is not applicable for the aforesaid assessment year.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing/selling of drugs. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the Medical Council of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “IMC Regulations”), wherein clause 6.8 was inserted w.e.f. 10.12.2009. From the amended IMC Regulations, the AO observed that a doctor or the professional associations shall not receive any freebies in the form of gifts, travel facility, hospitality, and cash or monetary grants from any pharmaceutical or allied healthcare industry or their sales people/representatives under any pretext. During the course of Eisai Pharmaceuticals AO drew to the attention of the assessee, the CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 on the subject “Inadmissibility of expenses incurred in providing freebies to Medical Practitioner by Pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industry”. After going through the details/documents furnished by the assessee, the AO identified the following expenses as having been incurred giving benefit to the doctors/their professional associations by way of freebies.
Sr. No. Nature of expenses Amount (Rs.) i. Honorarium to Doctors 14,17,103 ii. Travel and stay facility of doctors in 55,25,138 connection with conferences/seminars iii. Distribution of books 12,20,627 iv. Expenses on participating in 28,58,134 exhibition/sponsorship for conferences v. Other expenses (provision of expenses) 2,95,309 vi. HHC/CME Expenses in relation to 20,75,749 promotional activity by Field staff Total 1,33,92,060 The assessee submitted before the AO that the CBDT Circular does not extend to any of the above expenses as these were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the company. However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation and made an addition of the above amount of Rs.1,33,92,060/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Eisai Pharmaceuticals Rs.1,13,16,311/- and deleted Rs.20,75,749/- on account of expenses in relation to promotional activity by field staff.
Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 85 taxmann.com 354 (Ahmadabad-Trib), Solvay Pharma India Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 249 [Mumbai-Trib], Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2016) 74 taxmann.com 250 (Mumbai-Trib) and Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 6428 and 6429/Mum/2012) dated 23.12.2015 by ITAT ‘E’ Bench Mumbai and submits that the CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 is prospective and therefore, not applicable to the impugned assessment year i.e. 2011-12.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that the Medical Council of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002, wherein clause 6.8 was inserted w.e.f. 10.12.2009. Thus the Ld. DR submits that the amended IMC Regulations are applicable to the impugned assessment year and rightly the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained an addition of Rs.1,13,16,311/- made by the AO.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. In response to a query raised by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted a detail explanation Eisai Pharmaceuticals Rs.1,33,92,060/- located by the AO were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the company and outside the purview of the said CBDT Circular. The AO has extracted it at para 3.12 (page 16-17) of his assessment order dated 08.03.2014. However, instead of examining the issue from accounts and verifying the same, the AO has resorted to psychological and legal aspects, which are in the realm of general propositions. We are reminded of the cardinal principle of law that general propositions do not decide a concrete case. There was no lack of compliance by the assessee to the queries asked and details called for by the AO. The AO has failed to verify the same. Resultantly, the amended IMC Regulations relied on by the Ld. DR is not applicable to the instant case. Also it is settled law that the Circular issued by CBDT is prospective in nature. Thus the CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 is not applicable to the impugned assessment year. It has been rightly held in the decisions mentioned at para 5 hereinbefore.
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026