ITAT Holds Excise Refund Taxable for MAT; Sustains Scientific Allocation but Upholds Freebies Disallowance:

ITAT Holds Excise Refund Taxable for MAT; Sustains Scientific Allocation but Upholds Freebies Disallowance

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)’s deletion of employee-expense reallocations and restores MAT addition of excise refund

ITAT Rules Excise Refund is Income for MAT; Upholds Scientific Allocation and Freebies Disallowance

authorMeetu KumaridateDec 11, 2025
Last update on Dec 11, 2025
ITAT Holds Excise Refund Taxable for MAT; Sustains Scientific Allocation but Upholds Freebies Disallowance Eris Lifesciences Ltd., a pharmaceutical manufacturer, faced several additions for AY 2018-19 after the Assessing Officer reworked its employee cost allocations to its Guwahati Unit, which claimed a deduction under Section 80-IE. The AO rejected the company’s division-wise allocation method and substituted his own unit-wise sales ratio, resulting in an addition of Rs. 9.35 crore. He also disallowed 7.5% of channel partner, retail promotion and conference expenses under Section 37(1), alleging that a portion amounted to prohibited “freebies” to doctors under MCI Regulations. The AO also refused to exclude an excise refund of Rs. 19.66 crore from book profits while computing MAT under Section 115JB, holding it was income under Section 2(24)(xviii) after the 2015 amendment. The CIT(A) upheld the Section 37(1) disallowance. Both sides appealed before the Tribunal.
Punjab’s Taxpayers Rise: Statewide Protest Over Withheld GST and VAT Refunds
Main Issue: Whether the expense allocation, excise duty refund treatment under MAT, and Section 37(1) disallowance were correctly adjudicated, and whether the assessee was entitled to indexation adjustment while computing book profits under Section 115JB.
HC Allows Fresh Revocation Plea: GST Registration Can Be Restored If Returns Filed Within Extended Window
ITAT Held: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion of the Rs. 9.35 crore allocation-related addition, observing that the assessee’s division-based method was scientific, rational and aligned with CAS-7 standards. It held that the AO could not substitute this method with a simplistic sales-based allocation without demonstrating defects in the assessee’s system. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that expenses linked to providing benefits to medical practitioners remained hit by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apex Laboratories, and hence the disallowance was sustained. The Tribunal explained that post-Finance Act 2015, Section 2(24)(xviii) expressly treats government assistance in the form of duty refunds or concessions as income unless covered by narrow exceptions, which the assessee’s refund did not satisfy. The Tribunal, however, accepted the assessee’s plea on indexation for capital gains in MAT computation and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…