Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – Iii, Mumbai v. M/S.indoco Remedies Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.497 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – III, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Indoco Remedies Limited..Respondent. Mrs.S.V. Bharucha with Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr.Jitendra Jain with Mr.B.D. Damodar i/by M/s.Kanga & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 3[rd] April 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2008-09, following question of law has been proposed for our consideration. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was right in upholding the learned CIT (A)'s order in deleting the addition being the amount of under allocation of overhead expenses on account of reallocation of overhead expenses made by the Assessing officer between the Baddi Unit entitled to deduction under Section 80IB and the Head officer, relying on the decision of the Tribunal for AY 2003-04, without appreciating the fact that on similar facts & circumstances, the claim of the assessee pertaining to this issue was found incorrect during the block assessment proceedings and further the aforementioned expenses have not been apportioned on pro-rata basis and the assessee on its own accepted that it is not possible to apportion on any actual basis and consequently the apportionment on the basis of percentage of sales would have been the proper alternative ?” 2.Counsel for the parties are agreed that the question raised in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.3890 of 2010 dated 25[th] April 2012 in respect of the same respondent – assessee, wherein identical question was not entertained by this Court. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)