ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 770/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20/03/2013 IN TA NO. 752/2012 PASSED BY HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD) CIT-I AHMEDABAD PETITIONER(S) VERSUS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD RESPONDENT(S) (WITH OFFICE REPORT) WITH SLP(C) NO. 771/2015 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 7684/2014 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND C/DELAY IN REFILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 13/10/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. R. Bajaj, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. R.P. BhAtt, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Adv. Ms. Srishti Rani, Adv. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Vinod Lakhina Date: 2015.10.14 17:03:45 IST Reason: 2 UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted. appeals are disposed of in terms of signed order. [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON FILE] 1 IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8616 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.770/2015] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, AHMEDABAD ...APPELLANT VERSUS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8617 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.771/2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO.8618 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.29659/2015 @ CC NO. 7684/2014] ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. revenue aggrieved by refusal of High Court to frame certain questions of law for consideration in appeal(s) filed by it before High Court under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has filed instant appeals. 2 questions refused to be framed by High Court are substantially similar and following questions in appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.770 of 2015 will be illustrative of questions in other two appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 771 of 2015 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.....CC No. 7684 of 2014. B. Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that Product Registration expenses are revenue in nature when Product Registration expenses made to Drug Regulatory Authorities in various countries give enduring benefit of exporting registered drugs for many years? C. Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that Trademark Registration fee and Patent fee (Rs.37,92,606/- and Rs.15,49,880/-) are revenue expenses, when expenses were incurred for registration of Trademark in that country and also for registration of Patent, which are intangible assets under section 32(1)(ii) of Act? 3 D. Whether Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that expenses incurred outside approved R & D facility would also get weighted deduction based on word under on in house interpreting contradictorily to finding of coordinate bench in Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT. Mum) reported at 43 SOT 423? 4. We have considered materials on record and reasons set out in impugned order. It is our considered view that three questions extracted are substantial questions of law which needed to be heard in appeal(s) filed by revenue. In expressing above view, we should not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of contentions raised on questions extracted above. We accordingly allow these appeals and request High Court to hear aforesaid three questions of law in appeal(s) filed by revenue along with questions of law formulated by it in appeal(s). 4 5. All appeals shall stand answered and disposed of in above terms. .....,J. (RANJAN GOGOI) .......,J. (N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI OCTOBER 13, 2015 Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Ahmedabad v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd