TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for respondent No. 1. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'] insofar as the issue of disallowance of product registration expenditure for the Assessment Years 2012- 13 to 2015-16 which was not decided in view of the pending appeal by the Department challenging the order of the Tribunal in favour of the respondent- Assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and survey action under section 132/133A of the Act was carried out on 04.08.2015 in case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of M/s. Claris Lifesciences Ltd that the above directions u/s. 245D(8) with respect to product registration expenditure will not be contested before any court/authority. 9.8 Taking into account all the facts and material on record, it is concluded that the total additional income offered in the case of above mentioned applicants, as discussed hereinabove, can be accepted with reference to income disclosed in the settlement applications. The CIT(DR) and the Assessing Officer also did not make any further submissions/objections. In the light of the above, the cases of the applicants are hereby settled on the following terms and conditions." 3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that the appeal filed by the Department und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the issue as regards the product registration expenditure by availing appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law. We clarify that we have otherwise not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Ultimately, if the main order passed by the Commission is challenged, it shall be open for both the sides to raise all legal contentions available to them in law." 4. The petitioner therefore, preferred this petition challenging the order dated 23.02.2018 qua the issue of product registration expenses on the ground that the same was not decided by the Settlement Commission on merits. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the petitioner-Department submitted that the Settlement Commission, while disposing of the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be accepted by both the sides. 6.1 It was further submitted that the Settlement Commission has already disposed of the matter way back in 2018 and thereafter, the issue of product registration expenses was already held in favour of the respondent No. 1-Assessee since 2006-07. It was submitted that only if the High Court had reversed the decision of the Tribunal, the issue would be held in favour of the Revenue otherwise, the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, as recorded by the Settlement Commission. 6.2 It was therefore, submitted that the directions of the Settlement Commission are clear that if and when the issue is decided in favour of the Revenue then only the effect of such dec....