Itxa/614/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,City-10,Mum v. M/S Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1446 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax City-10 MumbaiV/s.M/s.Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., ... Appellants ... Respondents ---- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellants. Mr.R.G.Seth i/by R.G.Seth & Co. for the respondents. ---- CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE :14/2/ 2011 P.C. 1.Objections waived. Following four questions are raised by the Revenue in this Appeal :- 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in the fact and circumstances of the case and in law in directing the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh in the light of whatever is finally settled in the matter for the A.Y.1991-92 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in holding that M/s.Maneesh Exports a proprietary concern of the Managing Director of the Assessee holds a separate identity and the transaction of Maneesh Exports cannot be linked to the Assessee ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation on machineries ? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in directing that the assessee is entitled to depreciation in respect of planatory mixer and semi Automatic Box Strapping Machine purchased on March 30, 1998, and March 31,1998, even though the assessee had not proved the fact that the assets were used for the purpose of business during the relevant accounting year ? 2As regards the 1st question, Counsel states that the said question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal and hence not pressed. 3As regards question no.2 is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the income of the Maanesh Exports has been clubbed in the hands of the assessee by the department merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Tribunal has further recorded a finding that Manish Export was an independent legal entity and therefore, its income cannot be clubbed in the hands of the assessee, therefore the 2nd question cannot be a substantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. 4As regards question nos.3 & 4 are concerned, Tribunal has recorded the finding of fact that the department has not brought any material on record to show that the machinery in question was not installed before the end of financial year so as to deny the benefit of depreciation. Thus the decision on these two questions are based on finding of fact and no question of law arises from the order of Tribunal. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J)