Case LawHigh Court › Itta/260/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/260/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S.gulf Oil Corporation Ltd

High Court 12 Jul 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/260/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S.gulf Oil Corporation Ltd
Date of order
12 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Itta/260/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S.gulf Oil Corporation Ltd, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theappellate Tribunal is justified in holding that there is businesspurpose and commercial expediency in writing off advances madeto ECCL though there is nothing to show existence of the tradingtransactions between the two concerns?” We have he...

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ______________________K.J.

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,HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No. 260 of 2013 DATE: 12.07.2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-IIHyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited,Hyderabad. … Respondent This court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINII.T.T.A. No. 260 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred and sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law. “(A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theappellate Tribunal is justified in directing grant of deduction ofinvestments which are capital in nature as business loss? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theappellate Tribunal is justified in holding that there is businesspurpose and commercial expediency in writing off advances madeto ECCL though there is nothing to show existence of the tradingtransactions between the two concerns?” We have heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel for the appellantand gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears that on the first question the learned Tribunal has examinedthe matter in detail and after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.A. Builders[[1]], it allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction ofRs.1,41,21,000/- being advance given to its subsidiary company, M/s. EECL,since the same is written off as irrecoverable, consequent upon the lattercompany having been ordered to be wound up by the BIFR. Therefore, wedo not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of the learnedTribunal. We are of the view that the point of law has correctly been decided and further decision by this Court is not warranted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ______________________K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ_______________G. ROHINI, J Date: 12.07.2013ES [1]280 ITR 1
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