Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs Sandoz Pvt. Ltd.

Both these Appeals have been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging the common order dated 9 November 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment year 2001-2002 and 2002-2003.

Ms Bharucha, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue urges the following questions of law for our consideration.

"(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the pre-amended provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as existed at the relevant point of time do not apply in the case of the assessee in view of the provisions of article 22(1) of the Indo-Switzerland?

(b) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 14A of the Act are not attracted in the case of assessee as section 10B of the Act is in the nature of deduction and not in the nature of exemption?"

Regarding Question A :

In regard to this Question we find that the Tribunal has followed it''s decision in the case of Central Bank of India v/s DCIT 42 SOT 450 on similar facts. In fact earlier Revenue had filed an Appeal bearing Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 330 of 2013 in the matter of Citibank N.A where an identical question is disposed of by the Tribunal by following it''s decision in Central Bank of India (supra). We refused to entertain the Revenue''s appeal in the matter of Citibank N.A (supra) i.e. ITA No. 330 of 2013. As the Revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature warranting taking a different view from that taken by the Tribunal in the case of Central Bank of India(supra). In fact in our order dated 11 March 2015 in the ITA No. 330 of 2013 in the matter of Citibank N.A, we had observed that whenever the Tribunal follows it''s own earlier orders and the Revenue has accepted the earlier order by not filing an appeal therefrom then normally Revenue should follow a consistent practice and not prefer an appeal from the second order following the earlier order which has been accepted. However, in case the Revenue is of the view that there are certain distinguishing features or certain facts which warrant prosecution of an appeal from the second order, the same should be brought on record either in the appeal memo or by filing affidavit of the officer concerned for being considered at the time of admission. This alone would ensure law being equally applied. In any case, in the present facts, no distinction has been pointed out either in appeal memo or by filing the affidavit or by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue at the hearing. Thus Question A stands concluded. Accordingly, Question A does not raise any substantial question of law to be entertained.

Regarding Question B-

As far as question B is concerned we find that the impugned order has followed the decision of this Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Union of India (UOI), (2010) 112 BOMLR 2166 : (2011) 237 CTR 287 : (2010) 325 ITR 102 : (2010) 191 TAXMAN 119 and The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd., (2012) 249 CTR 38 : (2012) 343 ITR 108 : (2012) 206 TAXMAN 22 . In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order. In view of the above, the parties are agreed that no substantial question of law arises in respect of Question B.

Accordingly Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.