Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd....Opponent(S) on 28 April, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sonia Gokani
O/TAXAP/379/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 379 of 2014
================================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I....Appellant(s)
Versus
CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 28/04/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial questions of law:
"A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the TP addition of Rs.3.99 crores despite the fact that the said amount represented interest on loan given by the assessee to Associated Enterprise (ZIPL) in the form of OFCD which were not converted into equity?"
E. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IC on the entire profit of 83.90% which includes profit of 76.65% which the company was already earning from marketing the same products. The actual increase in profit was only Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/379/2014 ORDER 7.24% after manufacturing the same product at baddi unit?
H. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6.05 crores to Book Profit u/s. 115JB despite the fact that the said amount was disallowed u/s.14A and hence was required to be added to the Book Profit as per clause
(f) to Explanation 1 of section 115JB(2)?"
We notice that the Revenue has suggested following additional questions:
"B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in considering Product Registration expenses of Rs.4.30 crores as revenue expenditure when the same entitled the assessee to export the registered drugs to various countries for many years and thereby provided an enduring benefit to the assessee?
C. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that the Trade Mark Registration/patent fees of Rs.2.79 crores are revenue expenses when the same are classified as intangible capital asset u/s.32(1)(ii)?
D. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that the expenses incurred outside the approved R&D facility are also eligible for weighted deduction in contravention of the provisions of section 35(2AB) whereby only the expenditure on in-house research at approved R & D facility qualifies for weighted deduction?
F. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that the Assessing Officer should not determine the fair market value of goods when there is no inter corporate transfer despite the provisions of section 80IA(8) which applies to intra-corporate Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/379/2014 ORDER transfer of goods from eligible unit (Baddi unit) to non eligible business unit?
G. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that the Assessing Officer should not segregate the profit eligible unit u/s.80IB when there is transfer of goods from 80IB eligible Goa unit to non-eligible unit in contravention of the provisions of section 80IA(8)"
Learned advocates for the parties agree that questions B, C and D arose in Tax Appeal No.752 of 2012 filed by the Revenue. In such appeal, these questions were not considered. Without giving separate reasons, therefore, in this appeal, such questions are not framed for consideration.
Insofar as questions F and G are concerned, they are nothing but additional grounds and do not refer to any independent issue. Hence such questions are not separately framed.
To be heard with Tax Appeal Nos.752 of 2012 and 752 of 2013.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) (vjn) Page 3 of 3