Itta/9/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Natco Pharma Ltd

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.9 of 2014 DATED:31.1.2014 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax – IV,Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Natco Pharma Limited,Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.9 of 2014 Judgment:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) We have heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for theappellant and we have gone through the impugned judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal. This appeal is sought to be admitted on the followingsuggested questions of law. 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restoring thematter to the file of the A.O. to redo the assessment withoutconsidering the fact that the assessee suppressed its profitsin non-eligible units and inflated the profits in respect ofeligible units with a view to claiming higher deduction underSection 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restoring thematter to the file of the A.O. to redo the assessment withoutconsidering the fact that the assessee suppressed its profitsin non-eligible units and inflated the profits in respect ofeligible units with a view to claiming higher deduction underSection 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restoring thematter to the file of the AO to redo the assessment afterbringing the comparable case whereas the assessee’s ownunit is most comparable case basing on which the profit ofeligible unit was worked out and consequently addition wasmade ?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restoring thematter to the file of the AO to redo the assessment afterbringing the comparable case whereas the assessee’s ownunit is most comparable case basing on which the profit ofeligible unit was worked out and consequently addition wasmade ? It appears, the learned Tribunal has relied on its owndecision rendered earlier on an identical issue. The relevant portion of the said judgment has been extracted in the impugnedjudgment. We have seen the relevant portion. We do not find any illegality in the finding of the learnedTribunal. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. It is submitted by Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for theappellant that the appeal preferred against the very same orderhas been dismissed. Hence, this appeal is also dismissed. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 31.1.2014 PNB