The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds v. M/S. The Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd
High Court
25 Jan 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds v. M/S. The Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd
Date of order
25 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds v. M/S. The Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
SSM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2187 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS.... AppellantVERSUS
M/s. The Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
.... Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Ms. Priti Shukla for the Respondent.
CORAM:J. P. DEVDHAR ANDMRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR J.J.DATED:JANUARY 25, 2011.
P.C.:
Three questions are raised in this Appeal. As regards the
first two questions are concerned, learned Counsel for the revenue
states that the said questions are covered against revenue by the
decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax
V/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in (2010) 324 ITR
199.
2.Insofar as the third question is concerned, the Tribunal has
held that the reimbursement of statutory expenses do not have any
element of income and, therefore, no tax is required to be deducted
where the amount represents reimbursement of statutory duty. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the above decision of the Tribunal.
3.
Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)
(J. P. DEVDHAR, 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.