Case LawHigh Court › Itta/194/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/194/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. M/S. Heritage Finlease Ltd

High Court 04 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/194/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. M/S. Heritage Finlease Ltd
Date of order
04 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
2003-2004
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itta/194/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. M/S. Heritage Finlease Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULYTWO 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.194 OF 2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IiHyderabad. ..... Appellant AND M/S. heritage Finlease Ltd.,Golden Green Apartments,Punjagutta, Hyderabad .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred on the followingsuggested questions of law: 1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of CIT(Appeals) allowing theprovisoin for NPA (Non Performing Assets) evenbefore they become bad debts in the absence of anyprovision in the Income Tax Act allowing for such adeduction? 2.Whether the executive instructions issued by RBIas regards making provision for NPA has over ridingeffect so as to operate even in relation to income taxassessment proceedings? This appeal is preferred against the judgment andorder dated 29.05.2008 in relation to the assessment year2003-2004. It appears that the learned Tribunal has followedthe earlier order passed in the assessee’s own case in ITANo. 159/Hyd/05 dated 12.05.2006. The previous order is notchallenged rather accepted by the parties. Therefore in thismatter, no interference is called for. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. July 04, 2013MAS __________ G.Rohini, J.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan