The Commissioner of Income-tax (Large Tax Payer Unit) v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0204-54]

Citation 2015-LL-0204-54
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax (Large Tax Payer Unit)
Respondent Name Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/02/2015
Assessment Year 2006-07
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags capital expenditure incurred • construction of a building • cost of construction • royalty
Bot Summary: 2 The Revenue has formulated the following questions of law for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on royalty paid by the Assessee Company to M/s. Lyka Labs Ltd. Amounting to Rs.14,79,680/ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the Assessee Company of a deduction u/s. 35(1)(iv) on account of capital expenditure incurred by the Assessee Company towards cost of construction of a building used for research and development S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 15:57:06 ::: itxa-321-2013 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.10,41,178/ on account of outstanding creditors u/s. 41(1) of the Income Tax Act as these liabilities were outstanding for more than three years and ceased to exist 3 It is agreed between the parties and so far as Questions and are concerned, identical issues were raised by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2005 06 and this Court by an order dated 11 th February, 2013 dismissed the Revenue's Appeal in the Respondent Assessee's own case. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Questions and. 4 So far as Question is concerned, the impugned order has followed its order in Respondent Assessee's owne case for Assessment Year 2005 06. Although Revenue carried the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2005 06 in Appeal to this Court. The Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal on the above issue as it did not file any Appeal on the issue formulated as Question.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Tax Payer Unit) Appellant. V/s. M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Ms. Padma Divakar, for Appellant. Mr. Atul Jasani, for Respondent. CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 4th FEBRUARY, 2015. P.C: This Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges order dated 27 th July, 2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for Assessment Year 2006 07. 2 Revenue has formulated following questions of law for our consideration: (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on royalty paid by Assessee Company to M/s. Lyka Labs Ltd. Amounting to Rs.14,79,680/ (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in allowing claim of Assessee Company of deduction u/s. 35(1)(iv) on account of capital expenditure incurred by Assessee Company towards cost of construction of building used for research and development? S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 15:57:06 ::: itxa-321-2013 (c) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.10,41,178/ on account of outstanding creditors u/s. 41(1) of Income Tax Act as these liabilities were outstanding for more than three years and ceased to exist? 3 It is agreed between parties and so far as Questions (a) and (b) are concerned, identical issues were raised by Revenue for Assessment Year 2005 06 and this Court by order dated 11 th February, 2013 (Income Tax Appeal No.1949 of 2011) dismissed Revenue's Appeal in Respondent Assessee's own case. In view of above, we see no reason to entertain Questions (a) and (b). 4 So far as Question (c) is concerned, impugned order has followed its order in Respondent Assessee's owne case for Assessment Year 2005 06. Although Revenue carried order of Tribunal for Assessment Year 2005 06 in Appeal to this Court. Revenue accepted order of Tribunal on above issue as it did not file any Appeal on issue formulated as Question (c). Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain Question(c). 5 Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. (G.S.KULKARNI,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) S.R.JOSHI 2 of 2 Uploaded on 06/02/2015 Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 15:57:06 Commissioner of Income-tax (Large Tax Payer Unit) v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Report Error