Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.2 The legal aspect of the issue is that various pharmaceutical enterprises ( pharma companies) sponsor Doctors for attending seminars wherein their products and the research ITA nos.939 & 1129/AHD/2019 With C.O.Nos. 167 & 181/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 being carried out by them as well various developments in the field of medicine are disseminated and exchanged . They provide Doctors free travelling, accommodations, food etc., which are called freebies. Pharma companies also distribute various promotional material for their products having their logos or name(s) of their products on them. The expenses incurred in cash less than Rs.20,000/-under the various heads of expense e.g. business convention, CME, Patron networking expense, sales promotion expense etc., are termed as monetary grants (Rs.4,68,1747-). The promotional material is not exclusive to the Doctors and is distributed among all stakeholders including the dealers , pharmacists etc. The Medical Council of India (MCI) issued amended regulations which are called as Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 on 10.12.2009 prohibiting the doctors to accept the freebies from pharma companies and termed such acceptance as professional misconduct on the part of the doctors and health professionals. Later, CBDT issued circular No.5 of 2012 clarifying that such freebies to doctors and health professionals are not allowable as per the provisions of explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. The said circular is reproduced as below:

"SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - BUSINESS EXPENDITURE -OF - INADMISSIBIUTYOF EXPENSES INCURRED IN PROVIDING FREEBtES TO MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BY PHARMACEUTICAL AND ALLIED HEALTH SECTOR INDUSTRY CIRCULAR NO. 5/2012 [F. NO. 22S/142/2012.1TA.II], DATED 1-8- It has been brought to the notice of the Board that some pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries arc providing freebees (freebies) to medical practitioners and their professional associations in violation of the regulations issued by Medical Council of India (the 'Council') which is a regulatory body constituted under the Medical Council Act, 1956,

"9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The issue involved in the present appeal, i.e. whether freebies distributed to medical professionals by a pharmaceutical company is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act or not in light of circular issued by MCI was subject matter of deliberations by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai Bench "A" in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12. The co-ordinate bench, after considering various aspects including the circular issued by MCI and also circular of CBDT vide circular No.5 of 2012 held that the assessee was entitled for claim of sales promotion expenses incurred on distribution of articles to the stockists, distributors, dealers and doctors. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:--

'21. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration and after perusing the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India, find that the same lays down the code of conduct in respect of the doctors and other medical professionals registered with it, and are not applicable to the pharmaceuticals or allied health sector industries. Rather, a perusal of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, reveals that the scope and ambit of statutory provisions relating to professional conduct of registered medical practitioners under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is restricted only to the persons registered as medical practitioners with the State Medical Council and whose name are entered in the Indian Medical Register maintained under Sec. 21 of the said Act. We are of the considered view that the scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 neither deals with nor provides for any conduct of any association/society and deals only with the conduct of individual registered medical practitioners. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it emerges that the applicability of the MCI ITA nos.939 & 1129/AHD/2019 With C.O.Nos. 167 & 181/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 regulations would only cover individual medical practitioners and not the pharmaceutical companies or allied health sector industries. Interestingly, the scope of the applicability of the MCI regulations was looked into by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Max Hospital, Pitampura v. Medical Council of India (CWP No. 1334/2013, dated 10.01.2014). In the aforementioned case the MCI had filed an 'Affidavit' before the High Court, wherein it was deposed by the council that its jurisdiction is limited only to take action against the registered medical professionals under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, and it has no jurisdiction to pass any order affecting the rights/interest of the petitioner hospital. We are of the considered view that on the basis of the aforesaid deposition of MCI that its jurisdiction stands restricted to the registered medical professionals, it can safely be concluded that the MCI regulations would in no way impinge on the functioning of the assesseecompany which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pharmaceutical and allied products. We thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations are of the considered view that the code of conduct enshrined in the MCI regulations are solely meant to be followed and adhered by medical practitioners/doctors, and such a regulation or code of conduct would not cover the pharmaceutical company or healthcare sector in any manner. We are further of the view that in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, as the Medical Council of India does not have any jurisdiction under law to pass any order or regulation against any hospital, pharmaceutical company or any healthcare sector, then any such regulation issued by it cannot have any prohibitory effect on the manner in which the pharmaceutical company like the assessee conducts its business. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are unable to comprehend that now when the MCI has no jurisdiction upon the pharmaceutical companies, then where could there be an occasion for concluding that the assessee-company had violated any regulation issued by MCI. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that even if the assessee had incurred expenditure on distribution of "freebies" to doctors and medical practitioners, the same though may not be in conformity with the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (as amended on 10.12.2009), however, as the same only regulates the code of conduct of the medical practitioners/doctors, therefore, in the absence of any prohibition on the pharmaceutical companies in incurring of such sales promotion expenses, the latter cannot be held to have incurred an expenditure for a purpose which is an offence or is prohibited by law. In this regard we are reminded of the maxim "Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius", which provides that if a particular expression in the statute is expressly stated for a 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 assesses. Thus, now when the MCI regulations are applicable to medical practitioners registered with the MCI, then the same cannot be made applicable to pharmaceutical companies or other allied healthcare companies.