In Itxa/450/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Tds) Mumbai v. M/S. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Mumbai, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. :- 1.The appeal was admitted on 28th April, 2009, on the following substantial question of law:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in holding that the underlying transaction is not a transaction in the nature of contra...
Decision: The appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.450 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.
Dr. K. Shivram with Paras Savla for respondent.
CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2010
P.C. :-
1.The appeal was admitted on 28th April, 2009, on the
following substantial question of law:-
" Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in holding that the underlying transaction is not a transaction in the nature of contract but sale ? ":
2.This appeal has been placed for hearing together with
a batch of appeals. We have delivered judgment today in The
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) V/s. M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal No.2256 of 2009). Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and the assessee have stated that the facts of the present case are similar to those in the aforesaid appeal. In consequence, the question of law in the present appeal will stand covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in terms of the judgment of this Court. In the circumstances, the question of law is answered against the Revenue. The appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
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.