Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Cadila Health Care Ltd....Opponent(S) on 19 March, 2015

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: M.R. Shah, S.H.Vora

        O/TAXAP/170/2015                                    ORDER




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  TAX APPEAL NO. 170 of 2015

======================================
 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1....Appellant(s)
                        Versus
         CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD....Opponent(s)
======================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
======================================

       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
              and
              HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA

                           Date : 19/03/2015

                    ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) The present Tax Appeal is ADMITTED to consider the following substantial questions of law;

(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that CIT was not justified in resorting to the revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Act?

(B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in appreciating the observation of the CIT that during the assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer neither examined nor conducted necessary inquiries on the issue of remuneration received from Zydus Healthcare and should have treated it as income from other source?

Page 1 of 2

O/TAXAP/170/2015 ORDER (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee holds 96% share in the firm and the amount received represents 12.5% of the total turnover of the firm and that the assessee has provided auxiliary marketing services to the firm in lieu of which the assessee was received remuneration and whether the Tribunal's order is erroneous on the ground that the amount is paid as per the separate agreement in the form of MOU which is unsigned by the parties to the MOU and also on the ground that the amount is neither taxed in the hands of the assessee nor the firm?

(M.R. SHAH, J.) (S.H. VORA, J.) Siji Page 2 of 2