COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. Vs. ALLERGAN INDIA P. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these eight appeals the assessee is the same and the following substantial questions of law arise for our consideration in these appeals:

(2.) Reg. substantial question No. 1: The contention of the revenue is, Section 40(a)(i) was substituted by Finance Act, 2004, which came into effect from 01.04.2005. Therefore, the said provision has no application for the assessment years prior to 01.04.2005 and therefore he submits, the impugned orders passed granting the benefit in terms of the substituted provision is erroneous and requires to be interfered with. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to have a look at the earlier provision and the subsequent provision and then find out what is the difference and what is exactly the intention of the legislature in enacting the substituted provision. Sec.40(a)(i) prior to 1/4/2005 reads as under, which in fact was brought on the statute book by Finance Act, 1998, with effect from 1/4/1989: Sec. 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 3, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", -

(3.) Reg. substantial question No. 2: The contention of the Revenue is, the Tribunal was in error in granting depreciation to machinery which was in use by the assessee in manufacturing of its products and therefore the requirement of Sec.32 is not complied with and therefore it is contended the impugned order requires to be set aside.