Itta/3/2013 Of M/S Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
18 Jun 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/3/2013 Of M/S Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
18 Jun 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/3/2013 Of M/S Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
I.T.T.A. No.3 of 2013
DATE: 18.06.2013
Between:
M/s. Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited,Hyderabad.
… Appellant
And
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Circle-16(1), Hyderabad.
… Respondent
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
I.T.T.A. No.3 of 2013
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested
substantial question of law.
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theHon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining theorder of the lower authorities to the effect that the profit ofRs.3,00,09,300/- earned by the Assessee owing to fluctuation ofinterest rates represents income from other sources and not incomefrom business?”
We have gone through the impugned order and are of the view that thelearned Tribunal is correct in coming to conclusion that the income out of thesale of the contract through the State Bank of India, Koti, Hyderabad, fixingthe Libor rate is not a business income. The business activity of theassessee is generating power and it is not the business of the appellant tobuy and sell the contract. We, therefore, feel it appropriate to extract the
observation of the learned Tribunal, which reads as:
“Carrying out of business activity has nothing to do withearning of this income. The claim of the assessee is that when thepayment of interest is also a business expenditure, correspondinglysaving of interest is also a business income. In our opinion, earningfrom business activity is independent from earning from saving onaccount of this kind of hedging.”
We accept the finding and logic of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Date: 18.06.2013
ES
______________
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.