Itta/268/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Dharthi Qdrqedging Infrastructure Ltd
High Court
10 Jul 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/268/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Dharthi Qdrqedging Infrastructure Ltd
Date of order
10 Jul 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/268/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Dharthi Qdrqedging Infrastructure Ltd, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holdingthat the payments made by the assessee to thenon-resident towards hire charges of dredgers areallowable and the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, are not attracted?the case, th...
Decision: We dismiss the appeal accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A No.268 of 2014
DATE: 10.07.2014
Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax – I,Hyderabad.AndDharthi Dredging Infrastructure Ltd.,Begumpet, Hyderabad.
… Appellant
… Respondent
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.268 of 2014
ORDER:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is intended to be preferred in relation to theAssessment Year 2007-08 against the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal dated 19.03.2012 on the following suggestedquestions of law:
1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the order of the Tribunal is not perverseand liable to be set aside?the case, the order of the Tribunal is not perverseand liable to be set aside?
2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holdingthat the payments made by the assessee to thenon-resident towards hire charges of dredgers areallowable and the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, are not attracted?the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holdingthat the payments made by the assessee to thenon-resident towards hire charges of dredgers areallowable and the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, are not attracted?
We have seen the findings of the learned Tribunal and itappears that the learned Tribunal has relied on its own earlier decisionon identical issue. No challenge to earlier decision was made. Therefore, following the rule of consistency in the quasi-judicialprocess, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment andorder. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
We dismiss the appeal accordingly.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shallalso stand dismissed. No costs.
_________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
Date: 10.07.2014va/kvni
_________________
SANJAY KUMAR, 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.