Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd

C/TAXAP/201/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 201 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,VersusCADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1MR.S.N.SOPARKAR, LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 04/04/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1.Leave to amend. 2.Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11.09.2017 raising following questions for our consideration: “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.3,65,93,107/- made on account of disallowance of expense being capital in nature ? [B]Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,68,88,558/- made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act? [C]Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,94,85,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 35(2AB) of the Act? [D]Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred inignoringthediscrepanciesin reconciliation figures submitted by the assessee and erroneously concluding that Revenue had accepted the claim of the assessee?” 3.Regarding question-A, we notice that similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Tax Appeal No.40 of 2015, question was rejected by an order dated 23.01.2015. 4.Regarding question-B, similar issue was considered by this Court in Tax Appeal No.39 of 2015 by an order dated 23.01.2015. Question was rejected. 5.Regarding question-C also, we notice that similar issue had come up before this Court in Tax Appeal No.39 of 2015 and vide order dated 23.01.2015, this question was rejected. 6.Question-D is mere in nature of contention in support of question-C. 7.In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J)