Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 12.10.2006 pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06 and following grounds have been taken:

. A.Y. 2012-13

(l)The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,42,44,447/- (being 70% ofRs.2,03,49,211/-) made by the AO on account of physician samples distributed at free of cost.

2. Ground no. 1 is relating to deleting the disallowance of Rs. 14244447/- (being 70% of Rs. 20349211/-) made by the A.O. on account of Physician Samples distributed free of cost.

3. In this case, ld. A.O. disallowed the amount of Rs. 14244447/- being purchases of Physician's Sample (not for sale) distributed to the Physicians free of cost treating it as non-business expenditure. Ld. A.O. made the disallowance on account of that assessee is unable to produce the detail the difficult its claim for liability of the alleged expenses.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed.

11. And also cited an order of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No. 2204/Ahd/2014 and relevant para of the judgment is reproduced:

2. Relevant facts of the case are in a very narrow compass. This assessee is being manufacturing drugs and pharmaceuticals. It distributed samples free of cost to physicians under the pretext of its business requirements. It pleaded in the course of scrutiny that its marketing staff visits various doctors to update them about product as well as healthcare information. The said field marketing staff was claimed to have given free physicians samples to the doctors. The Assessing Officer framed the impugned assessment on 04.01.2013 to disallow 70% of the expenditure in question of Rs. 1 crore; coming to Rs.70,00,000/- on the ground that there was no evidence indicating business expediency in giving such -free samples to physicians. He thereafter adopted his reasoning as in preceding assessment year 2009- 10.

"5. The 1st ground of appeal is regarding an adhoc disallowance of 70% expenses incurred on physicians sample as claimed.

5.1 During the course of assessment proceeding, the A.O. had noticed that the appellant has claimed a huge expense against free samples distributed to . A.Y. 2012-13 physicians. It was stated by the appellant that this is a business requirement. ... [page 2 & 3] 5.2 ...[page4&5] 5.3 ... [pages 6, 7 & 8] 5.4 ... [page 9] Under the circumstances, 1 find as the appellant has been able to prove the genuineness of expense, proper recording in its books of accounts of the expenses, and the relationship of the expense with the business of the appellant, I find there is no need to make the said disallowance simply because in some other case, a disallowance made had been upheld. The case laws relied by the appellant also helps its case. The addition made is, therefore, deleted and the ground of appeal allowed."