Itta/204/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. M/S. Healthware Private Limited
High Court
04 Jul 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/204/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. M/S. Healthware Private Limited
Date of order
04 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itta/204/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. M/S. Healthware Private Limited, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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
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.204 OF 2013
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-IIHyderabad.
..... Appellant
AND
M/s. Healthware Private Ltd.,
Serene Towers, 4[th] Floor,Road No.10, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad.
.....Respondent
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta)
After hearing Sri S.R. Ashok, learned counsel for the
appellant and going through the impugned judgment and
order of the learned Tribunal, we do not find any reason tointerfere with the judgment and order passed by the learnedTribunal. The learned Tribunal arrived at correct legalconclusion that under Sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act,1961 what is required is writing off the debt in the books ofaccounts and after amendment, there is no requirement fort h e assessee to prove that the debt became bad.Consequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)after taking into consideration the fact that the debts werewritten off and the amended provision of Sec. 36(1)(vii), hasallowed the claim of the assessee. The learned Tribunal hascome to a correct legal conclusion and has rightly dismissedthe appeal preferred by the Revenue. We do not find anyquestion of law involved in the matter.
Consequently, we dismissed the appeal. No order asto costs.
______________________
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.
July 04, 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.