M/S CACHET PHARMACEUTICALS PVT V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and

MA/403/2007

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt., the appellant, contesting decisions made by the Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna, and the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Patna, the respondents, regarding the interpretation of the second proviso to Section 45B of the Income Tax Act. The core legal issue was whether the omission of this proviso is retrospective in nature. The Patna High Court referenced a previous decision and circular from the Government of India, which influenced the outcome by determining that the omission is indeed retrospective, thereby favoring the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751420 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna and another vs. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., CIT vs. Vinay Cements Limited, Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Section 45B of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA SINHA; SHALINI BIHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY RASTOGI; PARIJAT SAURAV
• Keywords: Income Tax; Omission of second proviso; Retrospective nature
• Section: 45B

Judgement Text

"Patna High Court MA No.404 of 2007 dt.08-01-2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.404 of 2007 =========================================================== M/S Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. through Lalan Kumar Singh, Director, Exhibition Road, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s with =========================================================== Miscellaneous Appeal No. 403 of 2007 =========================================================== M/S Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. through Lalan Kumar Singh, Director, Exhibition Road, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Patna .... .... Respondent/s with =========================================================== Miscellaneous Appeal No. 406 of 2007 =========================================================== M/S Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. through Lalan Kumar Singh, Director, Exhibition Road, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Patna 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In MA No. 404 of 2007) For the Appellant/s Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi Mr. Parijat Saurav For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha Ms. Shalini Bihari (In MA No. 403 of 2007) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi Mr. Parijat Saurav For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha Ms. Shalini Bihari (In MA No. 406 of 2007) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi Mr. Parijat Saurav Patna High Court MA No.404 of 2007 dt.08-01-2016 2 For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha Ms. Shalini Bihari =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) Date: 08-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-revenue. In all these three appeals identical question of law has been framed, that is, “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that omission of second proviso to Section 45B is not retrospective in nature”?, while admitting the appeals. Learned counsels for the parties point out that the question of law has already been dealt with by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2015 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 401 of 2008: Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna and another vs. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., in which it has been held that the omission of the said proviso is retrospective in nature following the decision of the Supreme Court dated 07.03.2007 in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cements Limited which decision was reiterated in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.: (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that Patna High Court MA No.404 of 2007 dt.08-01-2016 3 by Circular dated 17.12.2015 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been noted and it has been decided that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground by the officers of the Department and appeals already filed, if any, on this ground before Courts/Tribunal will be withdrawn/not pressed. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question of law is answered in the negative, against the revenue and in favour of the appellant in all the three cases. V.P.Sinha/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) (Sudhir Singh, J) U "