Itta/34/2002 Of Commr Of Income Tax Ap-Ii Hyd v. S.narasimha Reddy
High Court
11 Feb 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/34/2002 Of Commr Of Income Tax Ap-Ii Hyd v. S.narasimha Reddy
Date of order
11 Feb 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itta/34/2002 Of Commr Of Income Tax Ap-Ii Hyd v. S.narasimha Reddy, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.
Issue: The following questions of law are raised forthe opinion of this Court. i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in lawin holding that the disallowance of 40% of the incentivebonus claimed by the assessee as a debatable issue till08.03...
Decision: Accordingly, this Appeal is disposed of.
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
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH&HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMI.T.T.A. No. 34 of 2002
JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)
This Appeal arising out of the order dated21.09.1999 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench“ A ” , Hyderabad in I.T.A.No. 1688/Hyd/1993 for theassessment year 1991-92, is at the instance of theRevenue. The following questions of law are raised forthe opinion of this Court.
i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in lawin holding that the disallowance of 40% of the incentivebonus claimed by the assessee as a debatable issue till08.03.1995 and cannot be disallowed as a prima facieadjustment under Section 143(1)(a)?
ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was correct in allowing the assessee’srectification petition by changing its opinion?
When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learnedcounsel for both the parties have fairly submitted that theissue is squarely covered by the order dated 20.12.2011passed in R.C.No. 21 of 2000 wherein this Court, whileanswering the reference in favour of the assessees andagainst the Revenue took into consideration the decisionof the Supreme Court in Kvaverner John Brown Engg.(India) P.Ltd. v Assistant Commissioner of Income
Tax[[1]]. We are of the opinion that the same result in
R.C.No. 21 of 2000 would follow in the present I.T.T.Aalso.
Hence, the questions of law raised in the presentappeal are answered in the affirmative in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue.
Accordingly, this Appeal is disposed of. No order asto costs.
A copy of the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by thisCourt in R.C.No. 21 of 2000 be tagged on with this order.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Appeal,Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall standdisposed of as infructuous.
_________________
G. CHANDRAIAH, J
11.02.2014
bcj
______________________
CHALLA KODANDA
RAM,J
[1][2008] 305 ITR 103(SC)
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.