Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. Johnson and Johnson Ltd.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2016ITXA/1069/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Income Tax Appeal, the Revenue challenged the Tribunal's order regarding assessment for A.Y. 2000-01. The High Court noted that the Revenue no longer pressed the first three questions and found the remaining questions did not raise substantial legal issues, given a related judgment for the same assessee on A.Y. 2001-02.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Johnson and Johnson Ltd. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1069-14-itxa=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1069 OF 2014

¶4

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Tax Payer Unit), Mumbai .. Appellant v/s. M/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. .. Respondent Mumbai

¶5

Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the appellant Mr. Subhash Shetty for the respondent

¶6

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S.KULKARNI, J.J. DATED : 5^th OCTOBER, 2016.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 15^th February, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2000-01.

¶9

The appellant Revenue urges following questions of law for our consideration :-

¶10

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in alw, the Tribunal was right in overlooking the fact that the loss worked out by the Assessing Officer by way of underpricing was with reference to the actual cost of production and not with reference to the sale value of products to the

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

1069-14-itxa=.doc

subsidiary?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing further adjustment / reduction towards expenses, thereby ignoring the fact that the overheads are common to all the products manufactured by the assessee which had been duly and correctly taken into account by the Assessing Officer in working out the loss and that such overheads cannot become less when products are sold to a 100% subsidiary?

¶16

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in observing that no one had examined as to the price margin on sales overlooking the fact the Assessing Officer had taken into account the printed sale price list of all the products manufactured by the Assessee Company at the assessment stage?

¶17

(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in its decision regarding the issue of inclusion of Modvat in opening stock as rendered for A.Y. 2000-2001 in the light of Section 145A is consistent with its decisions deleting modvat from the valuation of closing stock rendered for preceding assessment year A.Y. 1997-98 and A.Y. 1998-99?

¶18

(v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on testing equipment provided to laboratories and hospitals free of charge even though such testing instruments were not used by the Assessee?

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

1069-14-itxa=.doc

3. Re. question nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) :-

¶23

Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue, on instructions, states that the Revenue does not wish to press these questions. In the above view, no occasion arise to examine the aforesaid questions arises. Thus, not entertained.

¶24

4. Re. question nos. (iv) and (v) :-

¶25

It is an agreed position between the parties that the issues arising herein from a common impugned order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2001-02 and subject Assessment Year stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee. This by virtue of the order of this Court dated 4^th July, 2016 in Income Tax Appeal No. 2441 of 2013 (CIT Vs. M/s. Johnson & Johnson) in the challenge to the same impugned order to the extent it relates to Assessment Year 2001-02. In the above view, questions (iv) and (v) as proposed do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.

¶26

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶27

(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

Uday S. Jagtap

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. Johnson and Johnson Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. Johnson and Johnson Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. G.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs the C.I.T.Central-I Bombay.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Thane -1 Vs M/S.Vidhi Builders

the commissioner of income-tax-11,mum Vs m/s abraxas media Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii, Pune Vs M/S. a. v. Bhat Developers

The Commissioner of Income-Tax-Ii.Pune Vs Smt.Vinaya Vikrant Patil

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii, Pune Vs Shri Shrikant S. Mahale