9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e incurred after 14.12.2009 to 31.3.2010 for relevant Assessment Year 2010-2011 was disallowed. We find that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the present case as the findings of facts of the Appellate Authority below are based on relevant Regulations and Amendment thereafter and the expenditure on such items prior to the Amendment have already been allowed in favour of the Assessee and they have been disallowed after 14.12.2009. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. - Tax Case Appeal No.723 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2019 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vertising and creating awareness of Healthcare Supplement-Zincovit manufactured by appellant which is outside the purview of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002 and hence not hit by the Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act? iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not appreciating that the Appellant is not bound by the regulatory codes of the Indian Medical Council nor has an obligation to comply with those regulations which are binding only on doctors/medical practitioners and professional associations in view of the undertaking given by the Medical Council of India before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Max Hospital, Pitampura vs. Medical Counci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basic intention of the decision was that the receiving of the gifts/freebies by Professionals is against public policy as also against the law in so far as the amendment by the Medical Council Act, 1956 to the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, once receiving of such gifts have been held to be unethical obviously the corollary to this would also be unethical, being giving of such gifts or doing such acts to induce such Doctors and Medical Professionals to violate the Medical Council Act, 1956. Consequently, we are of the view that the expenditure incurred by the assessee which has resulted in the violation of the amendment to the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, the expenditure incurred after 14.12.2009 to 31.3.2010 for relevant Assessment Year 2010-2011 was disallowed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Assessee and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, we find that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the present case as the findings of facts of the Appellate Authority below are based on relevant Regulations and Amendment thereafter and the expenditure on such items prior to the Amendment have already been allowed in favour of the Assessee and they have been disallowed after 14.12.2009. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
