PFIZER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-10(3)(2)(ERSTWHILE DCIT-8(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2613/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 March 2018AY 2007-082 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The First Appellate Authority restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer allowed the assessee's claim while giving appeal effect, rendering the appeal before the Tribunal infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pfizer Limited, engaged in pharmaceuticals, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer determined its income at a higher amount than declared. The assessee challenged this before the First Appellate Authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the Tribunal had become infructuous due to subsequent developments in the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

order dated 23/12/2015 of the CIT(A)- 17, Mumbai,the Assessee has filed the present appeal.Assessee- company ,engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in pharmaceuticals,filed its return of income on 31/10/2007 declaring total income at Rs.363. 79 crores.The Assessing Officer (AO)completed assessment,on 21/10/201, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, determining its income at Rs.552.25/- crores. 2.During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative stated that the order of the AO was challenged before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), that he had restored back the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, that the AO,while giving appeal effect had allowed the claim of the assessee,that the appeal filed before the Tribunal had become infructuous.In the background of the above events,the appeal filed has become infructuous. So, we dismiss the same. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. फलतः िनधा�रती �ारा दािखल क� गई अपील नामंजूर क� जाती है. Order pronounced in the open court on 1st March, 2018. आदेश क� घोषणा खुले �यायालय म� �दनांक 01 माच�, 2018 को क� गई । Sd/- Sd/- (अमरजीत �सह / Amarjit Singh ) (राजे�� / Rajendra) �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सद�य मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक/Dated : 01.3.2018. Jv.Sr.PS. अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ� 2. Respondent /��यथ� 3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब� अपीलीय आयकर आयु�, 4.The concerned CIT /संब� आयकर आयु� 5.DR “ C ” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय �ितिनिध, खंडपीठ,आ.अ.�याया.मुंबई

2613/M/16-Pfizer Ltd.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →