Itc/4/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax R.mundry v. Rukmini Krishna Modern Rice Mill Kakinad
High Court
09 Jul 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itc/4/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax R.mundry v. Rukmini Krishna Modern Rice Mill Kakinad
Date of order
09 Jul 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itc/4/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax R.mundry v. Rukmini Krishna Modern Rice Mill Kakinad, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
I.T.C No. 4 OF 2002
09-07-2014
BETWEEN
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry
…Petitioner
And
M/s. Rukmini Krishna Modern Rice Mill, Turangi, Kakinada
…..Respondent
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMI.T.C No. 4 OF 2002
ORDER:(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
This I.T.C is filed under Section 256 (2) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 by the Revenue with a request to require theVisakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal torefer the question, namely, whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in treating theincome of the assessee for provision of amenities as assessableunder the head ‘Other Sources’?
Whatever may have been the circumstances under whichthe case was filed; the learned Senior Counsel for the Income Taxin all fairness submits that the tax impact of the case is toomeagre. The Government also issued circular not to pursue the
matters where the tax impact is meagre. Therefore, we do not feelit necessary to require the Tribunal to refer the question.
The case is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orderas to costs.
___________________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
09-07-2014ks
____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.