Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Cit-I Ahmedabad vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd on 13 October, 2015

B6                                                                                        1


       ITEM NO.10                            COURT NO.8                SECTION IIIA

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                           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 THE 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 the counsel the Court made the following
                           O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.

 [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8616 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.770/2015] THE 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. The revenue aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to frame certain questions of law for consideration in the appeal(s) filed by it before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has filed the instant appeals.

The questions refused to be framed by the High Court are substantially similar and the following questions in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.770 of 2015 will be illustrative of the questions in the 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 the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that Product Registration expenses are revenue in nature when the Product Registration expenses made to Drug Regulatory Authorities in various countries give enduring benefit of exporting the registered drugs for many years?

         C.         Whether the 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 the 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 the Act?

D. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that the expenses incurred outside the approved R & D facility would also get weighted deduction based on the word under "on in house"

interpreting contradictorily to the finding of coordinate bench in Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT. Mum) reported at 43 SOT 423?"

4. We have considered the materials on record and the reasons set out in the impugned order. It is our considered view that the three questions extracted are substantial questions of law which needed to be heard in the appeal(s) filed by the revenue. In expressing the above view, we should not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised on the questions extracted above. We accordingly allow these appeals and request the High Court to hear the aforesaid three questions of law in the appeal(s) filed by the revenue along with the questions of law formulated by it in the appeal(s).

5. All the appeals shall stand answered and disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.

(N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI OCTOBER 13, 2015