COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ELI LILLY & CO. INDIA P.LTD.

Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

------------- ~ _ .......___ ,__L"__ - ~~. -. :' GS q- As on 31.03,2001 (vii) Unabsorbed Depreciation , 1,39,36,000 (viii) Business losses (excluding depreciation) to be carried forward <11,19,46,319* *[,12,39,45,496·,1,19,99,177] Aggregate Loss ,12,58,82,319" 6, When this is the position and the assessments were done in this manner it could not be stated that there was an error which could be corrected by invoking the provisions of Section 154 of the Act, The " ""II -'!~fsessee had claimed the set off <' 1,39,36,000 in terms of Explanation ., '~- "­ (of (2) proviSO to Section 164 JA (2) of the Act) as against the brought forward loss as per the books at <' 15,01,82,00/·, Thus, the ,matter ,related to the interpretation of the effect which is to be given to the aforesaid provision and, therefore, it was not a mistake which was to be corrected for which jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act could be -... exercised, as held by the Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Vs, ~ ," Commissioner of Income Tax, 255 ITR 273 and T,S, Balaram '­ Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs, M/s i/olkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50, 7. We, thus do not find any merits in these appeals. No question J of law arises, These appeals are accordingly dismissed. Ii ~. (A,K.SIKRI) il JUDGE ~~, (M,L-MEHTA) JUDGE MARCH 25,2011 skb ITA 97/2009 & ITA 657/2010 Page 7 or 1 -