The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.orchid Chemicals & Phamaceuticals Ltd., 313 Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai-37
High Court
19 Nov 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.orchid Chemicals & Phamaceuticals Ltd., 313 Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai-37
Date of order
19 Nov 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.orchid Chemicals & Phamaceuticals Ltd., 313 Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai-37, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 2.The Appeals have been admitted, by order dated 26.09.2008, on the following Substantial Question of Law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the fees paid by the assessee to a Singapore Company for carrying out clinical research for its drug...
Decision: In the light of the above, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and the Substantial Question of Law framed is left open.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 19.11.2018
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMand
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR
Tax Case Appeal Nos.1549 & 1550 of 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai
...Appellant in both the appealsVs.
M/s.Orchid Chemicals & Phamaceuticals Ltd.,313 Valluvarkottam High Road,Chennai-37
...Respondent in both the appeals
APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the common order dated 28.03.2008 in ITA No.780/Mds/2007
and ITA No.786/Mds/2007 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2001-02 and
2002-03, respectively.
For Appellant : For Respondent :
Mr.Karthik RenganathanMr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.)
These appeals by the Revenue, filed under Section 260-A
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act' for brevity), are directed
against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'B' Bench, in ITA Nos.780 and 786/Mds/2007, for the Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, respectively.
2.The Appeals have been admitted, by order dated
26.09.2008, on the following Substantial Question of Law:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the fees paid by the assessee to a Singapore Company for carrying out clinical research for its drug formulations are not taxable in India, and
that the assessee was right in not having deducted tax at source?”
3.Heard Mr.Karthik Renganathan, the learned counsel for
the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee.
4.The Revenue seeks to withdraw the appeals on account
of low tax effect in terms of Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.7.2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
5. In the light of the above, the appeals are dismissed as
withdrawn and the Substantial Question of Law framed is left open. In the event, in each of the cases, the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs.
Speaking (or) Non Speaking OrderIndex : Yes (or) NoInternet : Yes (or) No
(T.S.S.J.) (N.S.K.J.)
19.11.2018
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.and N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
msk
TCA.Nos.1549 and 1550 of 2008
19.11.2018
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.
EaseValue