Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Merck Sharp and Dohme of India Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 32 of 1968
Judge
Reported in[1983]140ITR334(Bom)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 80J and 84
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
RespondentMerck Sharp and Dohme of India Ltd.
Excerpt:
direct taxation - cost - sections 80 j and 84 of income tax act, 1961 - whether arrangement between assessee and manufacturing analytical and research chemists pvt. ltd. amounts to leases or licence - according to agreement between parties it is licence - question referred answered in negative. - - the agreement also clearly bears out that finding.tulzapurkar, j.1. the questions referred to us really depends upon whether the arrangement between the assessee on the one hand and . on the other evidenced by the agreement dated may 25, 1959, amounts to a leases or a licence. the tribunal has found that the arrangement between the parties is one of pure licence. the agreement also clearly bears out that finding. in view of this finding the question referred to us would be covered by the decision of this court in i.t. reference no. 7 of 1967, decided on 10-11-1976 cit v. bayer agrochem ltd. : [1982]134itr240(bom) . the question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 2. no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Tulzapurkar, J.

1. The questions referred to us really depends upon whether the arrangement between the assessee on the one hand and . On the other evidenced by the agreement dated May 25, 1959, amounts to a leases or a licence. The Tribunal has found that the arrangement between the parties is one of pure licence. The agreement also clearly bears out that finding. In view of this finding the question referred to us would be covered by the decision of this court in I.T. Reference No. 7 of 1967, decided on 10-11-1976 CIT v. Bayer Agrochem Ltd. : [1982]134ITR240(Bom) . The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

2. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //