Case LawHigh Court › Itta/229/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/229/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. Goodwin Finance Holding Pvt. Ltd

High Court 10 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/229/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. Goodwin Finance Holding Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
10 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/229/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. Goodwin Finance Holding Pvt. 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.229 OF 2013 DATED:10.7.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IIHyderabad … Appellant And Goodwin Finance Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,N-2, Tahasalman Chambers142-C, P.G. RoadSecunderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. NO.229 OF 2013 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) We have heard Mr. S.R. Ashok, learned counsel for theappellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has decided, on fact, that the assessee isnot responsible for making the payment. Therefore, the provision ofSection 195 of the Income Tax Act does not apply to the facts of thiscase. The learned Tribunal has correctly stated that unless and until itis shown that the assessee is responsible for making the payment,there is no question of finding fault with the assesses for non-deduction of tax. The applicability of law depends upon the factfinding and if fact finding is final, which has been done by the Tribunal,the law would automatically follow. Therefore, there is no error in thejudgment and order of the Tribunal for which we require to admit forfresh decision. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________________ 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