Expenditure by Pharmaceutical Companies On Doctors

Issue for Consideration

Explanation 1 to section 37(1) declares, for the removal of
doubts, that any expenditure incurred for a purpose which is an offence or
which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the
purpose of business or profession and no deduction shall be allowed for such an
expenditure.

It is the usual industry practice for companies, engaged in
the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical products, to distribute their
products amongst the medical practitioners by way of free samples and gift
articles; to conduct and sponsor seminars and lectures in and outside India; to
hold dinner and parties; to sponsor holidays and pay for travel and
accommodation of doctors and their spouses and incur such other expenses.

The expenditures so incurred is usually classified as the
advertisement and sales promotion expenses and is claimed as a business
expenditure. The validity of such claim is examined by the Supreme Court in the
case of Eskayef Pharmaceuticals Ltd, 245 ITR 116 (SC), in the context of section
37(3A), now omitted. A controversy has arisen, on account of the
conflicting decisions of the Tribunal, in the recent years, on the subject of
allowance or otherwise of the deduction of such expenditure, post issue of a
circular No.5 dt. 1.08.2012 by the CBDT in pursuance of the amendments of 2009
in the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette & Ethics)
Regulations, 2002 ( ‘Regulations’).

Liva Healthcare Ltd’s case.

The issue had first arisen in the case of Liva Healthcare
Ltd. vs. DCIT, 161 ITD 63. In the said case, the company for assessment
year 2009-10 had incurred expenditure on travel and accommodation of doctors
and their spouses to Istanbul and Hongkong and towards distribution of free
samples to the physicians. The tours were conducted to promote the products and
samples were distributed free of cost as a necessity of business requirement of
the assessee. The company had submitted before the AO that the expenditures
were incurred, including on samples given free of cost to doctors, to obtain
information regarding efficacy of the medicine and for the purposes of
advertisement, publicity and sales promotion; that samples were given free of
cost to the doctors so that they could try the same on patients and inform the
medical representative of the assessee about their results and their
experiences; that the nature of the product sought to be sold was such that it
could be done through the doctors alone and as such promoted sales also; that
when such expenditure was incurred on doctors and samples were given to
doctors, certain amount of good relationship was created with them who might
then buy or prescribe those medicines in preference to other similar products.
In a nutshell, it was explained that the twin purpose of such expenditures was
to test the efficacy of the products as well as for advertisement, publicity or
sales promotion. It was also submitted that the samples were manufactured as
“physician samples not for sale” and the suppliers invoices were
marked as “physician samples” only. The assessee relied upon a few
decisions including the decision in the case of Eskayef Pharmaceuticals
(India) Ltd., (supra) :

In assessing the total income, the A.O. disallowed the
expenditure incurred on travel and accommodation in full and also disallowed
25% of the expenditure claimed on distribution of free samples by applying
Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the
disallowance of the travel and accommodation expenditure but deleted the
addition on account of disallowance of the expenditure in part of distribution
of the free samples by allowing the appeal of the assessee company, in part.

In cross appeals to the Tribunal, the revenue relied upon the
order of the A.O. while the assessee company reiterated its stand taken before
the A.O. Significantly, it brought to the notice of the Tribunal the order
passed by the Tribunal in its own case for assessment year 2008-09. The
Tribunal examined the provisions of the said Regulations of 2002 and in
particular clauses 6.4 and 6.8 as also the then newly amended clause
6.8. It also took into consideration the decision of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court in the case of the Confederation of Pharmaceutical Industry vs.
CBDT, 355 ITR 388 wherein validity of the said CBDT circular No. 5 of
2012 and the said Regulations of 2002 governing professional ethics
of doctors was challenged and was found by the court to be as per the law and
salutary and issued in the interest of public and patients. The Tribunal also
took note of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT
vs. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd., 344 ITR 478, wherein the
court had confirmed the disallowance of commission paid to the doctors, as not
allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act, being against public policy and
prohibited by law.

The Tribunal at the outset expressed their agreement, in
principle, with its decision in assessee’s own case for assessment year
2008-09, so far as the expenditure incurred on distributing free samples to
test the efficacy of the pharmaceutical products, in accordance with the ratio
of the case of Eskayef Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. (supra), at the
initial stage of introduction of the products to get the feedback of the users
and held that such expenses could be said to be incurred wholly and exclusively
for the purposes of business satisfying the mandate of section 37 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the physicians’ samples were necessary to ascertain the
efficacy of the medicine and for introduction of a new product in the market,
it was only by distributing the free samples that the purpose was achieved.

The Tribunal however proceeded to hold that where a
particular medicine had already been introduced into the market, in the past,
and its uses were established, giving of free samples could only be as a
measure of sales promotion and advertisement and that the ratio of the said
decision in the case of Eskayef Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd.(supra),
delivered in the context of section 37(3A) of the Act, did not apply due to the
fact that the Finance Act, 1998 had thereafter, introduced an Explanation to
section 37(1) of the Act which required that an expenditure, the purposes
which was an offence or prohibited under the law, was disallowed.

The Tribunal noted that the purpose for incorporation of the
said Explanation to section 37(1) had been explained by the CBDT in Circular
No. 772, dated December 23, 1998. It further noted that the said Regulations
of 2002 prohibited, vide regulation 6.4.1, a physician from receiving any
gifts, gratuity, commission or bonus in consideration or return for referring
the patients for medical, surgical or other treatment.

It held that once the pharmaceutical products were
distributed after the products were introduced in the market and its uses were
established, giving of free samples to doctors and physicians would be a measure
of sales promotion which would be hit by regulation 6.4.1 of the said Regulations
of 2002. It further held that the said regulation had a force of law and
the receipt of free samples amounted to receipt in consideration of or return
for referring patients and that such receipts were prohibited under regulation
6.4.1 of the said Regulations of 2002 inasmuch as the stated
objective of giving free samples to the doctors and physicians was to induce
them to write prescriptions of the said pharmaceutical products. It held that
the expenses could not be allowed as deduction while computing income from
business or profession.

The Tribunal drew support from the decision in the case of Eskayef
Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. (supra) to hold that the test laid down by the
court, read in conjunction with Explanation to section 37 of the Act and
regulation 6.4.1. of the said Regulations of 2002, made it clear
that the expenditure on such free samples was hit by the Explanation to
section 37 of the Act and was not allowable as deduction.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the expenditure on
foreign travel and accommodation of doctors and their spouses was incurred with
the intent and the objective of profiting from the distribution and
entertainment and had a direct nexus with promoting the sales and
profitability, all of which made such expenditure violate the provisions of the
said Regulations of 2002. It held that the expenditure was incurred to
seek favours from the doctors by way of recommendation of the company’s
products which was an illegal gratification, was against public policy, was
unethical and was prohibited by law. Accordingly, the expenditure in question
was liable for disallowance in full as was held by the A.O. and the CIT(A).

PHL Pharma (P) Ltd.

The issue had again arisen in the case of PHL Pharma (P)
Ltd. vs. ACIT, 163 ITD 10(Mum. ). In this case, the assessee company had
debited an amount aggregating to Rs. 83.93 crore to the Profit & Loss
Account towards advertisement and sales promotional expenses, for the year
ending on 31.03.2010. The said expenditure included expenses on distribution of
free samples and gift articles to medical practitioners and doctors, besides
the expenditures on conducting seminar and lecture meetings, journals and
books, travel and accommodation and such other items and things. The A.O.
disallowed an amount of Rs. 23 crore being that part of the expenditure that
was incurred on or after 10.12.2009, i.e. the date of notification of the said
amendments in the said Regulations of 2002. On appeal, the CIT(A) agreed
with the case of the assessee company and allowed the appeal.

On appeal by the Income tax Department to the Tribunal, it
was held as under:

–   The said Regulations of 2002 dealt
with the professional conduct, etiquette and ethics for the registered medical
practitioners, only; it requires that they shall not aid or abet or commit any
of the prescribed unethical acts; it laid down the code of conduct for doctors
in their relationship with pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry.

–   The CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2012 had
heavily relied upon the said Regulations of 2002.

–   The code of conduct has meant to be followed
and adhered to by the medical practitioners and doctors alone and did not apply
any manner to pharmaceutical companies and the Delhi High Court in the case of Max
Hospitals vs. MCI had confirmed this position in WPC 1334 of 2013 dt.
10.01.2014.

–   The Indian Medical Council did not have any
jurisdiction nor had any authority upon the pharmaceutical companies and could
not have prohibited such companies in conduct of their business.

–   As far as the company was concerned, there
was no violation of any law or regulation. The provisions of section 37(1)
applied to a company claiming the expenditure and the violation of section
37(1) was to be examined w.r.t the company incurring the expenditure and not
the doctors who were the beneficiary of the expenditure. Even the additional
prohibition prescribed on 01.12.2016 applied only to the medical practitioners
and not to the pharmaceutical companies .

–   The punishments or penalties prescribed in
the said Regulations applied only to the medical practitioners and not to the
companies.

–   The CBDT in issuing the said circular No.
5 had enlarged the scope of the said Regulations by applying it to
the pharmaceutical companies without any enabling provisions to do so. It had
no power to create a new impairment adverse to an assesee or a class of
assessees, without any sanction of law. The circular issued should have
confirmed with the tax laws and should not have created a new burden by
enlarging the scope of a different regulation.

–   The circular in any case could not be
reckoned retrospectively i.e., it could not be applied before the date of its
issue on 01.08.2012.

–   The expenditure incurred by the assessee
company was in the nature of sales and business promotion and was to be
allowed; the gift articles bore the logo of the assessee and could not be held
to the freebies; the free samples proved the efficacy of the products of the
company and again were not in violation of the said Regulations framed
by the Medical Council of India.

–   The decision in the case of Confederation
of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (supra) upheld the validity of the said
circular with a rider that no disallowance should take place where the assessee
satisfied the authority that the expenditure was not in violation of the Regulations
framed by the Medical Council of India.

–    The assesseee company, in the opinion of the
CIT(A),  in the case had proved that the
expenditure were not in violation of the said Regulations.

–   The action of the CIT (A) was upheld and the
expenditure claimed was allowed by the Tribunal.

Observations

The conflicting decisions have brought out a very interesting
issue wherein all the sections of the society are required to address a few
pertinent questions; whether one can participate in an offence, even trigger
it, and still not be accused of the offence? For example, can one give a bribe
to a government official and still plead that he cannot be punished or can one
pay a ransom and plead that he cannot be punished? Can one be a party to illcit
activities and plead that not him but the other person be punished for the
crime? Can one be an abettor or instigator of a crime or an offence and plead
innocence?

It may be possible to legally resolve the controversy by
holding, that in the absence of a provision of law that expressly provides for
the conviction, in explicit words, of both the parties to an offence, one of
the parties to an offence, though found to be abetting the offence, will go
scot free. The apparently simple answer may not remain so when the facts are
tested on the touchstone of public policy and ethics and importantly the
questions raised. In our view, these are the questions and the factors that
were relevant for deciding an issue of allowance of an expenditure even before
the Explanation to section 37 was issued in the year 1998. The courts, in scores
of the decisions, had occasion to address this issue even before the issuance
of the said Explanation and had largely held that an expenditure that was
against the public policy was not deductible. It is this aspect of the issue
that was partly touched in Liva Healthcare’s case and with
respect could have been explored in depth in the PHL Pharma’s case.

Medical Council of India is constituted under the Medical
Council Act, 1956 with the object of governing and regulating the practice of
medicines in India. It has been empowered to formulate rules and regulations
for effectively carrying out its objectives. The said council, empowered under
the said Act, has formulated The Indian Medical Council (Professional
Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 which was amended in 2009
and the amendment was notified on 10-12-2009 by the council. The said Regulations
vide amended clauses 6.4 and 6.8 provide for rules that prohibit receipt of the
freebies and many related acts and items and things by the medical
practitioners. Vide regulation 6.4.1, a physician is prohibited to
receive any gifts, gratuity, commission or bonus in consideration or return for
referring the patients for medical, surgical or other treatment. It reads as:
“6.4 Rebates and Commission: 6.4.1 A physician shall not give, solicit, or
receive nor shall he offer to give solicit or receive, any gift, gratuity,
commission or bonus in consideration of or return for the referring,
recommending or procuring of any patient for medical, surgical or other
treatment. A physician shall not directly or indirectly, participate in or be a
party to act of division, transference, assignment, subordination, rebating,
splitting or refunding of any fee for medical, surgical or other
treatment.”

Subsequent to the
notification of the said regulations, the CBDT has issued the Circular No. 5
dated 1-8-2012 directing the Income-tax authorities to disallow the expenditure
incurred on distribution of freebies on application of Explanation 1 to section
37(1) of the Income-tax Act. The relevant part reads as under; “It has been
brought to the notice of the Board that some pharmaceutical and allied health
sector Industries are 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. 2. The council in exercise of its
statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct,
Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the regulations) on 10-12-2009
imposing a prohibition on the 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. 3.
Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act provides for deduction of any revenue
expenditure (other than those failing under sections 30 to 36) from the
business Income if such expense is laid out/expended wholly or exclusively for
the purpose of business or profession. However, the explanation appended to
this sub-section denies claim of any such expense, if the same has been
incurred for a purpose which is either an offence or prohibited by law. Thus,
the claim of any expense incurred in providing above mentioned or similar
freebees in violation of the provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional
Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 shall be inadmissible under
section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law.
This disallowance shall be made in the hands of such pharmaceutical or allied
health sector Industries or other assessee which has provided aforesaid
freebees and claimed it as a deductable expense in its accounts against
income.”

The validity of the said circular has been examined by the
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Confederation of Indian
Pharmaceutical Industries, 353 ITR 388. The Punjab and Haryana High Court
in the case of KAP Scan and Diagnostics, 343 ITR 476 has examined the
issue of allowance of expenditure incurred on payment of commission to the doctors
by the diagnostic company. Recently, the Chennai Tribunal examined the issue of
allowance of deduction of an expenditure incurred by the pharmaceutical
manufacturers on distribution of freebies to the medical practitioners in the
case of Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd, 164 ITD 81 to hold that such an
expenditure was not allowable as deduction in view of the said Regulations of
2002 issued by the MCI.

 The same CBDT circular
had come up for consideration in the case of Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd. IT
Appeal Nos. 6429 & 6428 (Mum.) of 2012, dated 23-12-2015, wherein the
Tribunal held that CBDT circular was not be applicable in the A.Ys. 2010-11 and
2011-12 as it was introduced w.e.f. 1.8.2012. Similar issue of allowance of
such expenditure in the case of pharmaceutical companies had been decided in
favour of the assessee, in the case of UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, IT Appeal
No. 6681 (Mum.) of 2013, dated 13-05-2016, wherein it was held that the
CBDT circular could not have a retrospective effect.

The question is, can a person participating in an act, which
is considered as an offence in the hands of other party, be held to have not
offended the law? Can he not be said to have abetted an offence? Can he be
treated as a conspirator? Can he be said to have triggered the offence? Can he
not be punished for exploiting the weakness of the week? The answers in our
opinion may or may not be available in the express provisions of a statute but
will have to be found from the understanding of the public policy which is one
of the important pillars of the jurisprudence, civil or criminal. It may be
simple to hold that once an act is an offence for one party it shall equally be
an offence for anothers party whether expressly provided for in a statute or
not and the other party shall not be allowed to reap the benefits of such an
act, however, this apparently simple solution in our opinion, may not really
hold water in all cases and may not even be judicious. For example, in cases
involving ransom or protection money. The issue requires an in-depth debate
involving conscience of the society and perhaps cannot be adjudicated by only
interpreting one of the provisions of a statute in isolation.