Biocon India Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 August, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

Biocon India Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 August, 2008

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

1

IN 5:212 3163 COURT 0}? Kaanastaxa AT  .

nnrxn wars was 11"*nAy or An$usﬁ;,¢§§a 
PRESEﬁ%H ' ' K v_
was KGN'BLE M. JU$w1¢£ ﬁ;L. 4§JﬁﬁAwaf 
E$§  " V _ 2 ,
mm HON' am   5;. 

_____........_.._.

:fr,§;§n§2S4(2¢$4';

BE  :

Mfs Bioaon Ig&ia_§ﬁnﬁte¢hJ»_
20" EH, nosu: Rpad, ' '

I

Elentroni¢M¢iﬁyAPL$,
Bangaloxa4561=229.   _ .n .
R/by it$'?ice--Exéside3t%GrQup--

Finance, ﬁ,B-Ch;nnappa*s/c_;

Bhemaiah n.3,, 36 years, _ .. A§PELLANT

{By advgcat¢«s:i§s.éarthasarathiy

Agni'
Th@,$gyﬁtg Qdm1§sianer of
In¢oe~$ax {Asst.),

' "»»spec1a; Rangeea;
E Bangalore;g '" .. RE$POREENT

  *_}ay,guv6aate sri.M.v.seshacha1a)

_ In
} %.,<:.2~

"f--wnis $.TuA. is fixed 'undex Sec.260A. af The
came wax Act to ailaw the appeal and set aside

--~ ordexs passed by the Incame ?ax Appellate



2

Tribuna;, Eangalere in 3&5. §o.521/sanq¢1§a§*f¢§taa
39.1.2994

, ."= '»§«'~.~ whis AP9eal is camxng "on for "fiﬁai7 heaz;ﬁg_k this day, Mmxaunnws J. ae1iv§xed"the.£w;;awiggi .

J U D G M E_§;$ This appeal is by £ﬂ#jasse%se§'cﬁaii%$§4ng tge ccncurrent findings, of;"£h$ $r§g: §és§$d by the Assessing Officer; V!C§§E&$S4§ﬁéi W of Incme-Tax (Appeals), §3§gale@%ﬂ§#aL£ﬁ£;§é:jgonfinmad by the Incame~m%xH®ﬁ?ﬁ%1}a{¢ G?x;§§$;;I mﬁangaloxe Beach. in :13 '@2;f$$§g£%§§9iﬁéaﬁ&d H3ﬂ.1.20G4 raising the following subsﬁﬁﬁtﬂéiiﬁdéstions o£ iawr ~a} Whathex ﬁn the facts, the trxbunaa was x' right ;g uphcléing the exclusion of 96% of 2;. Research and Developent fee and 3 miscellaneous incwme for the puxpose of amputing the relief under Sec.8GKHC of the "< h} 'Whether the txibunal was right in haiding ~. j that Research and Devalopment fee and ndscellaneaus incame would fail within the ambit of Explanatica (baa) to Sec.BOHHC of the Act and consequently 99% of the receipts were reqnired to be excluded ﬁrm business profit for the purpese of camputatien of ralief under Sec.39HHC of the Act?

65/ " w in._' i>%§$_iSTANT Z 3 :3) Whether the receipts to be fzqom the prafits of the bsxsiness gas "Vp':3.<;-V£.d£~d undex Explanation (baa) to sec't:.oaj..30:§:-sc:_4'To:c the Act represent gross rreeua-:i.§t.bs'=.VofA guéh source of alncczzﬁ or:-"1E1:'e«.ne't 3_:e¢eijpts--f.a£terj' exclusion from grass; imgikaignsts.'*2:el1atec1 .to' the expenses which 1i;3d'--béen i::?;a.rgec1" =;i_.n the profit 3.25 less ac-c:o%:.*.:t?

cl) Whether the tr.i;b3:k3a.1. was 'justified in holrﬁng that r.1eV-._.'!1.1r__**3;.'%.4:*:,~, 1_1.s=.r.'1"e-r._ -SHs5.r:.8£)-<.'* of the Act is; '::equixed*~ to' be given to the net incoma out;:=.=.-E . At:};e?{.b14leS'e:;*u.I:d1:, and Develcpznent fee without c:'.i;i;§i'dexji'n:f;~. '_the precedence be:i.ngathe o:E_ '._1';il'.i"unal in the aase c>£_..:-:~a.33';z::a.=;etu::~ 'Cé'v.f~.<§;el;;§;vered by the atria B<_Va:i3ch;3;'is;: agspx-L{3ved¢_b1r 'thé'"Hon" ble High Court of

2. hééérd "t1;Vé cdﬁiiméi for the parties. 3, 'thé _:TVT"c:.ﬁn.-xnael for bath the parties su1:<m:;'.t that ".113 ' via:-:w"~~-éﬁf the judgment of this court 'SSIOl'iER OE' I2~3'CGl*m-TAX Vs. ABCON ',15=';i€c'1zm3jr<xim":+;~zn szsrsrms 9. LTD. (237 ITR-201}, last q:;§a?*stiéi;«--'V."L:;aV{.3sVV to be azzswereé. against the asses:-iee.

ACC4'CcC!'§i,'l'1g.L£.' Y, we are not required to answer the $:--m_va. Therefore, we have to confine our order in '::é1gar&:d. to questions (a) to {ca}.

" The dispute between the aasessee and the xrevemze is only in regard to the benefit given to i'°7/ 4 the assessee under Ser.:.$0HIiC. The assegsee is earning income frcm two types of busi1_m§2.._ 7"sr:'Lz. , Research and Develcspzmnt and 1':eg1.1."La.r_. in manufacturing products of Bio*Technc3;c~«¢j§=.V"'~V:i'hAen'the ~- only question ta be <::ai;si;l.4=;;éé:d'. --_ 4' . .t';he -- deductions are te be iz1 'c_:fdsar under sec.a0Hm: in j:he arxﬁe at the prc2poxt1ona.i§e..&_px<?fit:' n.:¢';§4£Vvv. .vIi';'r'!.1'..S.2i.I&%#. $A Vivzxto export t:zrn--over/total to be workad out by tht=. . has not been done sec; 193; _,__ of the apinion that withcmt iii}-,he5.'.€;'--..vq'11ﬁés':;i.c=£:s we have to remand the zrxattiear 'to ~'|.'. 1VIl't'.'.:V:' 32:»: fresh consideration.

5. Aqc;ordii:xg§.y..V.j--t1i;L5 "'.é1ppea1 is allowed in part. V§v£3tté.i'::"i;!a..A razAnax;<:1'é;'1."""i-;:¢:>V the tribunal. only ta consider n6w= «Sec; ta be applied in the case at" the assésésfee foij tize relevant assessment year. sd/-

Iuclge sd/-~ Rzwasoa judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court