The Cit v. M/S.wockhardt Ltd
High Court
28 Aug 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit v. M/S.wockhardt Ltd
Date of order
28 Aug 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit v. M/S.wockhardt Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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.533 OF 2003
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.533 OF 2003
The CIT .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Wockhardt Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Dr.K.Shivram with Mr.A.K.Jasani for Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 28th August, 2008
DATE : 28th August, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This
Appeal has already been admitted on 19.10.2004 on the
only one substantial question of law mentioned in the
said order. Dr.Shivram, the learned Counsel for the
Respondent has brought to our notice that the similar
question of law, as is raised in this Appeal, has
already been decided by this Court in favour of the
Assessee and against the Revenue, in the Assessee’s own
case viz.ITXA (L) No.70 of 2003 - CIT V/s.Wockhardt
ITXA (L) No.70 of 2003 - CIT V/s.WockhardtLimited, by an order dated 5.12.2005. Hence, for the
Limited
same reasons as recorded in the aforesaid order dated
5.12.2005, the question of law raised in this Appeal is
also answered in favour of the Assessee and against the
Revenue. Appeal stands dismissed.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.