1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2071 OF 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3086 OF 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3087 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr. J.D.Mistry with B.D.Damodar i/b. Kanga & Co. for respondent. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. :- 1. The appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the ITAT dated 25th February, 2009 raise the following question of law:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the contract awarded by the assessee to third parties for manufacture of medicines under 2 the assessee's own brand name and under its complete control and specification amounted to sale of goods and not works contract for the purpose of Sec. 194C ? " 3. These appeals have been placed for hearing together with a batch of appeals. We have delivered judgment today in The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) V/s. M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal No.2256 of 2009). Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and the assessee have stated that the facts of the present case are similar to those in the aforesaid appeal. In the circumstances, for the reasons set out in the aforesaid judgment, the present appeals do not raise any substantial question of law. All the appeals are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)