CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd.

344 ITR 476High Court2012#1982 most cited

What is CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Payment of commission to doctors for referring patients to diagnostic centers or providing gifts, freebies, or hospitality to medical practitioners by pharmaceutical companies is against public policy and cannot be allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37(1). Demanding such benefits is unethical on the part of doctors, and paying them is equally unethical on the part of companies.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre · 344 ITR 476 · 25 Taxmann.com 92 · Section 37(1) · commission to doctors · freebies to doctors · gifts to doctors · medical referrals · diagnostic centre payments · pharmaceutical company expenses · expenditure against public policy · prohibited by law

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 92

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

freebies to doctorssection 92f(v)r&d expendituresection 35(1)bright line testprohibited by lawamp expendituresection 33weighted deductionsection 35(2ab)explanation to section 37section 92f

Judgments citing CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, Cr-7, Jaipur vs. Shri Anil Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 11/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal ( C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…e. 8. However, counsel for the respondent Mr. Jain contended that action of the respondent unethical and in view of the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Commissioner of income Tax vs. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre P. Ltd. reported in (2012) 344 ITR 476 and also the decision of Supreme Court in case of M/s Maddi Venkataraman and CO. (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1998 299 ITR 534 wherein para 24 and 25 it has been had as under:- 24. In the instant case the assessee had indulged in transactions in violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange ( Regulation) Act. The assesse…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. 500082 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(3), Hyderabad

ITA 189/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…ns, once the details are furnished by the pharma companies, will be able to examine the same and take an appropriate action as per law. 2.11.2 It is also to be mentioned that in the case of CIT Vs. KAP Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P) Limited (2012) reported in 344 ITR 476 wherein admissibility of commission paid to doctors for referring patients for diagnosis was dealt, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court considered the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002 and concluded therefrom that such payment of commission was opposed to public policy and consequentially disallow…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

ITA 188/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…ns, once the details are furnished by the pharma companies, will be able to examine the same and take an appropriate action as per law. 2.11.2 It is also to be mentioned that in the case of CIT Vs. KAP Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P) Limited (2012) reported in 344 ITR 476 wherein admissibility of commission paid to doctors for referring patients for diagnosis was dealt, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court considered the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002 and concluded therefrom that such payment of commission was opposed to public policy and consequentially disallow…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(3), Hyderabad

ITA 187/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…ns, once the details are furnished by the pharma companies, will be able to examine the same and take an appropriate action as per law. 2.11.2 It is also to be mentioned that in the case of CIT Vs. KAP Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P) Limited (2012) reported in 344 ITR 476 wherein admissibility of commission paid to doctors for referring patients for diagnosis was dealt, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court considered the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002 and concluded therefrom that such payment of commission was opposed to public policy and consequentially disallow…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 186/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…ns, once the details are furnished by the pharma companies, will be able to examine the same and take an appropriate action as per law. 2.11.2 It is also to be mentioned that in the case of CIT Vs. KAP Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P) Limited (2012) reported in 344 ITR 476 wherein admissibility of commission paid to doctors for referring patients for diagnosis was dealt, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court considered the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002 and concluded therefrom that such payment of commission was opposed to public policy and consequentially disallow…

M/S Apex Laboratories P. Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

C.A. No.-001554-001554 - 2022Supreme Court22 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 37(1)

…y be recognized. It cannot be held that businessmen are entitled to conduct their business even contrary to law and claim deductions 16 Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar v. State of Punjab, (2011) 13 SCC 158. 17 See regulation 8 of the 2002 Regulations. 18 (2012) 344 ITR 476 (P&H HC). 7 of payments as business expenditure, notwithstanding that such payments are illegal or opposed to public policy or have pernicious consequences to the society as a whole.” *** “If demanding of such commission was bad, paying it was equally bad. Both were privies to a wrong. Therefore, such commission paid to private do…

M/S. Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT- 8 (1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 6901/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6901/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6840/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Fdc Limited Acit Circle– 8(1) बिाम/ 142-48, S. V. Road {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} Jogeshwari (West) R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai – 400 102 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7016/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Circle– 8(1) M/S Fdc Limited बिाम/ {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} 142-48, S. V. Road R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Jogeshwari (West) Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 102 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…5.08.2017) - ACIT V/s Liva Healthcare Ltd., Mumbai (ITA No. 904/Mum/2013, dated 12.09.2016) - Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (SSI) V/s CBDT (CWP No. 10793 of 2012, dated 26.12.2012)(HP) - CIT V/s KapScan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd. [2012] 344 ITR 476 (P&H) - Solvay Pharma India Ltd V/s PCIT (89 taxmann.com 249) - ACIT V/s Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (ITA No. 12/PNJ/2014) - UCB India (P.) Ltd. V/s ITO (ITA No. 6681/Mum/2013) - Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. V/s Addl. CIT (TS-5033-ITAT-2017) - Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd V/s DCIT (51 CCH 032, Ahmedabad Tribunal) - ITO Vs. Sunflower Pharmacy (51 CCH…

Cipla Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1219/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalecipla Ltd., Vs. Dcit Cc-1(12) Cipla House, Peninsula 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Business Park, Gk Bldg, Mk Road, Mark, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1450B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. J.D. Mistry. Ar Respondent By : Shri. V. Sreekar. Dr Shri. Sanjay Sethi. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai, Order Passed U/S 148 R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri. J.D. Mistry. ARFor Respondent: Shri. V. Sreekar. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…ad observed that as held by the High Court, if the assessee was able to establish that the MCI regulation was not applicable to the assessee, then the same could not be blindly applied in its case. (iv) CIT Vs. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd. (2012) 344 ITR 476 (P&H): Cipla Ltd., Mumbai We find that the judgment in the aforesaid case was rendered in context of the commission paid by the assessee company which was running a scanning and a diagnostic centre to the private doctors for referring patients for diagnosis/scanning. Thus, the facts involved in the case before the High Court are distinguishable a…

M/S.Srl Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax-7, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 1528/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri R. L. Negi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & Shri SFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, DR
Section 14ASection 263Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI R. L. NEGI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) PCIT-7, M/s SRL Diagnostics Pvt. Room No. 315, 3rd floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. बिधम/ Piramal Tower, Annexe, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACT9117E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri V. Sridharan & Shri S. Sriram, ARs by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Anand Mohan, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.11.2020 D…

Aristo Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1104/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma - Ld.CIT-DR &
Section 33Section 37Section 37(1)

…had observed that as held by the High Court, if the assessee was able to establish that the MCI regulation was not applicable to the assessee, then the same could not be blindly applied in its case. (iv) CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd. [2012] 344 ITR 476 (P&H): M/s. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Assessment Year :2014-15 We find that the judgment in the aforesaid case was rendered in context of the commission paid by the assessee-company which was running a scanning and a diagnostic centre to the private doctors for referring patients for diagnosis/scanning. Thus, the facts involved in t…

M/S. Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2458/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2010-11 Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) Commerce House Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Rajvansh Apartment Judges Bungalow Road Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aabct 0228 K

For Respondent: Shri Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…the ld.CIT(A) has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma, 316 ITR 419 (All) as well as judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre P.Ltd., 344 ITR 476. Before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the issue was whether expenditure incurred by an assessee on the ground that commission paid to Government doctors incurred by the assessee is in contravention of the public policy and not allowable as expenditure. The Hon’ble High Court has replied this question against the assessee and held that commiss…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Thane vs. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6222/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Bayer House, Dcit, Circle-1 Central Avenue, Thane Hiranandani Estate, Thane (West) [Pan : Aabcb3852F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik, DRFor Respondent: Shri Harry Parikh, AR
Section 20Section 33Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Bayer House, DCIT, Circle-1 Central Avenue, Thane Hiranandani Estate, Thane (West) [PAN : AABCB3852F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik, DR Respondent by : Shri Harry Parikh, AR Date of Hearing : 16-09-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18-09-2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A.M: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A…

Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT - 14(2) (Erstwhile Addl. CIT. Range 8(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4826/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ot barred from making gift. In this regard, the Assessing Officer held that this argument of the assessee has no substance in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kap Scan & Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 344 ITR 476 wherein the court held that paying commission to the doctors is unethical and against the public policy and forbidden by law and thus the same was disallowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. ii. Secondly, the assessee questioned the legal validity of the Circular No. 05/2012 issued by the CBDT. In this regard, Assessing Officer relied on the deci…

Aristo Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by

ITA 5807/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha () Aristo Pharmaceuticals P Ltd Vs Acit, Range-2(1)(1), Mumbai 3Rd Mercantile Chambers, Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan : Aaaca4495N Appellant Respondednt Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Aristo Pharmaceuticals P Ltd Mercantile Chambers, 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Appellant Respondednt

Section 37(1)

…e Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (SSI) vs CBDT (2013) 353 ITR 388 (HP) and also the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Kap Scan & Diagnostic C entre Pvt Ltd (2012) 344 ITR 476 (P&H). The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant facts, has rightly deleted addition made towards sales promotion expenses, but sustained partial amount, wherever amount incurred by the assessee in respect of each item of sales promotion article is over and above Rs.750 without appreciating the fact that once it was held that circular issued…

India Medtronic P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2160/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarit(Tp)A No.2160/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 India Meditronic Pvt. Ltd., Acit 10(1)(1) 1241 Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai Vs. Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R VoraFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…he case of Dr Anil Gupta (ITA No.486/2008) have held that MCI regulations govern only doctors and medical practitioners and not applicable to other assessee. The ld AR submitted that the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (344 ITR 476) has held that expenses which are opposed to public policy can not be allowed as expenses relying on the MCI regulations. The Ld counsel argued that when the there are divergent views of the Various High court , the construction which is favourable to the assessee has to be followed as has been laid down in the case of CIT Vs Vegetable Products L…

Aishika Pharma P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 732/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri I.P.Bansal And Shri Vivek Bansal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.732/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 M/s. Aishika Pharma Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. The ITO, Ward-2(1), PAN AAGCA2654M vs C/o. Sh.Vivek Bansal, 2nd New Delhi. Floor, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-029. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri I.P.Bansal And Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocates For Revenue : Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been dire…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 820/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…regulations dated 10.12.2009, is applicable only from Asst Year 2013-14 only. 15. The ld. DR, on the other hand, filed before us a copy of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd., 344 ITR 476 (P&H). In the aforesaid decision, the question before the court was in relation to AY 1997-98, which was prior to coming into force of the IMC Regulations. In that case, the expenditure claimed was on account of commission paid to Doctors who referred Patients to the assessee for various diagnostic tests which was ITA No.802 & 820/Bang/2017 & CO…

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 802/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…regulations dated 10.12.2009, is applicable only from Asst Year 2013-14 only. 15. The ld. DR, on the other hand, filed before us a copy of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd., 344 ITR 476 (P&H). In the aforesaid decision, the question before the court was in relation to AY 1997-98, which was prior to coming into force of the IMC Regulations. In that case, the expenditure claimed was on account of commission paid to Doctors who referred Patients to the assessee for various diagnostic tests which was ITA No.802 & 820/Bang/2017 & CO…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Life Star Pharma Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5012/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Acit, Circle 15 (2), Vs Life Star Pharma Pvt.Ltd., C.R. Building, 208, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. Phase-3, New Delhi. Pan No : Aabcl3646F Department By Smt. Naina Soin Kabil, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Sumit Goel, Cit(A) & Shri J.P.Sharma,Ca Date Of Hearing 13.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2018 O R D E R Per Diva Singh : The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Assailing The Correctness Of The Order Dated 29.07.2016 Of Cit(A)-5, Delhi Pertaining To 2012-13 Assessment Year On The Following Grounds : "1. Whether, On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law , Id. Cit (A) Was Right In Holding That The Commission Paid By The Assessee To The Doctors Was Allowable As It Was In Keeping With A Trade Practice & Thus Ignoring The Fact That It Was An Illegal Payment Not Allowable As Per The Explanation To Section 37(1) Of The Act.?" 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 69,07,000/- Made On Account Of Expenses Incurred On Doctors ? 3 That The Grounds Of Appeal Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 4 That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of The Appeal Raised Above At The Time Of The Hearing. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Engaged In The Business Of Marketing Pharmaceutical Products (Medicines) Through A Nationwide Network Of C&F Agents In The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings Was Required To Justify The Business Promotion Expenses Of Rs. 69,07,000/-. The Cbdt Circular No. 5 Of 2012 Was Referred To On The Basis

Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The ACIT, Circle 15 (2), Vs Life Star Pharma Pvt.Ltd., C.R. Building, 208, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. Phase-3, New Delhi. PAN No : AABCL3646F Department by Smt. Naina Soin Kabil, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri Sumit Goel, CIT(A) & Shri J.P.Sharma,CA Date of Hearing 13.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.12.2018 O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH : The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 29.07.2016 of CIT(A)-5, Delhi pertai…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aristo Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5747/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita No.5553/Mum/2014 M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Cit-2(1) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mercantile Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai- 400020 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaca4495N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Ita No.5167/Mum/2015 Dcit-2(1)(1), M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 561, Mercantile Chambers, बिधम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, 12, J.N. Heredia Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai-400 001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaca4495N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…uttress his contention that the sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee were not allowable as an expenditure, relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd. (2012) 344 ITR 476 (P&H). The Ld. A.R further in support of his contention that the aforesaid expenses incurred by the assessee by way of distribution of “freebies” were not allowable in the backdrop of the CBDT Circular No. 5/2012, dated 01.08.2012 and the MCI guidelines, relied on certain judicial pronouncements viz. (i) DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi Vs. Ochoa La…