The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Msd Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd
High Court
27 Sep 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Msd Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
27 Sep 2019
Assessment year(s)
2011-12
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Msd Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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
$~36
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 868/2019
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6
..... Appellant
Through:Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.
versus
MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD...... RespondentThrough:Ms. Rashmi Chopra and Mr. HarpreetSingh Ajmani, Advocates.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R D E R%27.09.2019
C.M. No. 43453/2019 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
ITA 868/2019
3. The Revenue assails the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the ITAT inS.A. No. 230/Del/2019 arising out of ITA No. 1423/Del/2015 for theassessment year 2010-11 and S.A. No. 231/Del/2019 arising out of ITA No.1382/Del/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. By the impugned order,the Tribunal has extended the stay granted by it in favour of the Respondent-assessee beyond the period of 365 days. The issue sought to be raised by theRevenue is covered by the decision of this Court in Pepsi Foods Co. Pvt.Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr, 2015 376 ITR 87.This Court has held that the Tribunal can extend the stay beyond the period
of 365 days despite the second proviso under Section 254 (2A) of theIncome Tax Act.
4. Thus no question of law arises in the present appeal and the same isdismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
SEPTEMBER 27, 2019nk
SANJEEV NARULA, 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.