Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Macleods Pharmaceuticsl Ltd on 12 February, 2020

Author: Milind N. Jadhav

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Milind N. Jadhav

Priya Soparkar                        1                      15 itxa 1718-17-o


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

        INCOME TAX APPEAL (IT) NO.1718 OF 2017

Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax Central-1             ... Appellant
     V/s.
Macleods Pharmaceutics Ltd.                         ... Respondent
                         ---
Mr.Suresh Kumar with Ms.Sumandevi Yadav, Advocate for the
Appellant.
Mr.Niraj Sheth with Mr.Upendra Lokegaonkar i/by M/s Mint &
Conferers, Advocate for the Respondent.
                          ---

                            CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
                                    MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2020 P.C.:-

1. Heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, Revenue for the appellant and Mr.Sheth, learned counsel for the respondent /assessee.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 21st September, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench "B", Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.7405/Mumbai/2014 for the assessment year 2011-

12.

3. Let the appeal be admitted on the following two substantial questions of law:-

Priya Soparkar 2 15 itxa 1718-17-o "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the CBDT Circular dated 1 st August, 2012 was effective from 1 st August, 2012 notwithstanding the fact that it was clarificatory in nature and would be effective from the date of Medical Council of India (MCI) Notification dated 10th December, 2009?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.111,11,70,050/- made on account of disallowance of sales promotion expenses?"

4. Since Mr.Sheth, learned counsel appears for the respondent, need for issuance of formal notice stands obviated.

(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) ....