Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/2261/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/2261/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 7 Mumbai v. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd

High Court 27 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2261/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 7 Mumbai v. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd
Date of order
27 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itxa/2261/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 7 Mumbai v. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: DATED : 27TH JULY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.The question raised in this appeal is, whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets taken over from Sumitra Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. at the written down value as reflected in the books of Sumitra Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. or at the m...

Decision: 4.In the result, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2261 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. ..Respondent. Ms. Suchitra Kamble for the appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistri, senior Advocate with A.K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 27TH JULY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.The question raised in this appeal is, whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets taken over from Sumitra Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. at the written down value as reflected in the books of Sumitra Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. or at the market value at which the assessee had purchased the said unit. 2.The assessment year involved is 1996-97. In the assessment year in question, the assessee had purchased bulk drug unit of Sumitra Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. as per the scheme of arrangement approved by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh as also by the High Court of Bombay. Admittedly, even after the Bulk Drug Unit was taken over by the assessee, Sumitra Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. continued to carry on business. In such a case, taking over the Bulk Drug Unit under the approved scheme of arrangement could not be treated as amalgamation and consequently, Explanation 2 to Section 43(6) of the Act would not be applicable. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the market value and not the written down value has to be taken for the purposes of depreciation cannot be faulted. 4.In the result, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan