Case LawHigh Court › Itta/324/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itta/324/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii,Vsp v. M/S Skoda Export Company Ltd.,Vsp

High Court 30 Jan 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/324/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii,Vsp v. M/S Skoda Export Company Ltd.,Vsp
Date of order
30 Jan 2018
Assessment year(s)
1991-92
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/324/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii,Vsp v. M/S Skoda Export Company Ltd.,Vsp, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed on this short ground.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO I.T.T.A. No. 324 OF 2003 ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act of 1961”), seeks to raise the following question of law for consideration: “Whether the appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act on the refundable interest component?” It is now brought to our notice that in relation to the very same assessee, Skoda Export Company Limited, the Revenue filed I.T.A.No.55/V/2000 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench in the context of the assessment year 1991-92 questioning the entitlement of the said assessee to interest under Section 244A of the Act of 1961 on the refund of the excess amounts paid by way of interest under Section 234B of the Act of 1961. By order dated 13.03.2008, the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal held against the Revenue, following the judgments in Ambat Echukutty Menon[1], Sardar Balwant Sing Gujral[2] and Needle Industries (P) Limited[3]. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, fairly states that the aforestated order passed by the Tribunal attained finality as no further appeal was preferred by the Revenue before this Court. In the light of the fact that the Revenue accepted the decision of the Tribunal on the very same question of law which is now sought to be raised in the case of the same assessee, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed on this short ground. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 30.01.2018 ES/CCM ES/CCM 1 173 ITR 581 Ker. 2 86 CTR 64 M.P. 3 233 ITR 370 (Mad) _____________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, 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