Itta/275/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Prasad Film Laboratories Limited
High Court
10 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/275/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Prasad Film Laboratories Limited
Date of order
10 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
2003-2004, 1998-1999
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/275/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Prasad Film Laboratories Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH 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.275 OF 2012
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-IHyderabad
..... Appellant
AND
M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,
LV Prasad Marg, Banjara Hills,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 against the
judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated5.09.2008 in relation to the assessment year 2003-2004, on the following suggested questions of law:
1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas correct in law in holding that theassessee was entitled to treat the un-recovered dues towards cost of the filmssupplied to producers as business lossthough the assessee is not involved inbusiness of purchase and sale of films?
2.
Whether in the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT isjustified in allowing irrecoverable dues onaccount of cost of films againstcommission income or film processing?
We have heard the learned counsel for theappellant and we have gone through the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learnedTribunal while deciding this matter has followed theearlier decision of the tribunal in the assessee’s owncase for the assessment year 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 being dated 15.09.2006. The earlier order of theTribunal was passed basing on the decision of theSpecial Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deputy CITV/s. Oman International Bank, SAOG reported in (2006)100 ITD 285 (Mum.)(SB). The facts and circumstancesof this case are identical to that of the Special Benchcase. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interferewith the impugned judgment and order.
Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. No order as
to costs.
______________________Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.
July 10, 2013MASb
__________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.