Itta/159/2010 Of Chenai Finance Co. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
26 Jul 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/159/2010 Of Chenai Finance Co. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
26 Jul 2010
Assessment year(s)
1995-1996
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/159/2010 Of Chenai Finance Co. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2010) allowed 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.
Sections referenced in this judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
ITTA No.159 of 2010
Dated:26.07.2010
Between:
Chenai Financeco Ltd.
…AppellantandIncome Tax Officer,Ward 6(3),Hyderabad.…Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
ITTA No.159 of 2010
JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The appellant filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,being ITA No.38/Hyd/1999 in respect of assessment year 1995-1996aggrieved by the disallowance of certain amounts towards depreciation ofmachinery allegedly supplied by the appellant to M/s.VST Industries Limited .The learned Tribunal by order dated 08.11.2007 partly allowed the appeal butdeclined to set aside the disallowance on the holding that the transaction is afinancial transaction, and not a lease transaction. It appears, aggrievedthereby, the appellant already filed ITTA No.178 of 2008 which is pending onthe file of this Court. In the meanwhile, the appellant also movedmiscellaneous application, being MA.No.102/Hyd/2008, before the learnedTribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seekingrectification of the earlier order of the Tribunal. The same having been
dismissed as not maintainable, the instant appeal is filed under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act.
We have heard the Counsel for the appellant. We do not find anyquestion of law, much less, substantial question of law, to entertain theappeal. Further, aggrieved by the original order dated 08.11.2007 in ITANo.38/Hyd/1999, the appellant has already preferred appeal and it can raiseall questions in the said appeal. We give liberty to the appellant to do so. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are in fullagreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal that the earlier order isnot rectifiable under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Therefore, the ITTA is dismissed in limine.
__________________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
______________________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, 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.