Held  that it was apparent from the facts that the details of business promotion expenses were called for and examined in detail by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings. After examining the details as brought on record by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had taken a considered decision that no disallowance on account of business promotion expenses was called for. It was evident from the details of business promotion expenses that the expenditure was not in the nature of freebies or monetary grant and that all the payments were not made to doctors as observed by the Principal Commissioner. The observation of the Principal Commissioner that this payment was in the nature of grant to doctors and that no tax was deducted at source on these payments was, therefore, not correct. When the matter was examined by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings and no freebies was found to be provided to the doctors, there was no question of any disallowance in accordance with the Board’s Circular No. 5 of 2012 (2012) 346 ITR 95 (St).  That the Principal Commissioner had not brought anything adverse on record to substantiate her allegation that the claim of the assessee was liable to be disallowed under section 37 of the Act.  Order of revision is quashed. (AY.2018-19)