The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.okasa Pharma Pvt. Ltd
High Court
29 Jan 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.okasa Pharma Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
29 Jan 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.okasa Pharma Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
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
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.)NO.2530 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax.....Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Okasa Pharma Pvt. Ltd...........Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar with Mr. B.M. Chatterji and Mr.
P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant
Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Counsel with Mr.
Sanjay Udeshi i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for
the Respondent
CORAM: F.I.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 29th January, 2009
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: 29th January, 2009
P.C.:
P.C.:
. Admit on the following questions:-
"(a) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
assessee company is entitled to deduction
under Section 80IA of the Act in respect of
the profits arising on the manufacturer got
done through the Loan Licensee manufacturers
who were not eligible for deduction under
Section 80IA in their own stead."
(b) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
assessee company is liable to be assessed
under the provisions of Section 158B(B) of
(-2-)
the Act on the undisclosed income on account
of admission made by the Director of the
company under Section 132(4) of the Act in
respect of deduction under section 80IA of
the Act claimed for ineligible LLMs."
2. In so far as Question (b) is concerned, in
our opinion, considering the finding recorded by the
Tribunal in para.32 of its order we concur with the
said finding and we find that the question of law
consequently would not arise.
3. In so far as Question (a) is concerned
considering that the assessment is for the block
period and as an Appeal is already admitted for the
regular assessment the present question would not
survive and can be answered in the regular appeal
which is admitted.
. Appeal accordingly disposed of.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,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.