Itta/103/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S. Prabhath Agri Bio Tech Pvt., Ltd
High Court
26 Jun 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/103/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S. Prabhath Agri Bio Tech Pvt., Ltd
Date of order
26 Jun 2013
Assessment year(s)
2007-2008
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itta/103/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S. Prabhath Agri Bio Tech Pvt., Ltd, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OFJUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
I.T.T.A. No.103 OF 2013
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-IVHyderabad.
..... Appellant
AND
M/s. Prabhath Agri Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd.,6-3-540/10, Opp State Bank of Hyderabad,Punjagutta, Hyderabad.
.....Respondent
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta)
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellantand gone through the impugned judgment and order of
the learned Tribunal in relation to the assessment year2007-2008. We find no mistake has been committed bythe learned Tribunal as it followed its own decision in thecase of Swagath Seeds Private Limited and held that theissue involved herein is squarely covered by the aforesaidjudgment. There is no statement in the appeal that theaforesaid judgment and order in Swagath Seeds PrivateLimited has been challenged before any court. Underthese circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightlyallowed the exemption under Sec.10(1) of the Act.
As far as another issue i.e. disallowance of interestis concerned, the learned Tribunal has correctly held thatthe loan has been taken from HDFC Bank and interesthas been paid to the bank, which has to be allowed.Therefore, the learned Tribunal has correctly held so.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order asto costs.
_______________________
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.
June 26, 2013MAS
__________G.Rohini, 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.