Itta/407/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sangam Tobacco Company Private Ltd
High Court
02 Aug 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/407/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sangam Tobacco Company Private Ltd
Date of order
02 Aug 2013
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/407/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sangam Tobacco Company Private Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUI.T.T.A.No.407 of 2012
Date: 02-08-2013
Between:
Commissioner of Income TaxRajkamal Complex, Lakshmipuram main Road,Guntur-7.
… Appellant
And
Sangam Tobacco Company Private Limited,2-14-5, Sthambalagaruvu,Guntur – 522 006.
… Respondent
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUI.T.T.A.No.407 of 2012
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 13-04-2012 inI.T.A.No.88/Vizag/2009 in relation to assessment year 2005-06.
2. We have heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learnedstanding counsel for Income Tax, and have gone through the
impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
3. It appears that the learned Tribunal, while deciding thematter, has relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Courtbetween CIT and Virgin Creationspassedin ITAT No.302 of 2011GA 3200/2011, dated 23-11-2011, wherein it was held that theamendment brought out in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 is retrospective in nature, and came to the fact finding that asthe tax was remitted by the assessee before due date, the benefitunder Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act can be given. In view of the same,we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order ofthe learned Tribunal. As such, no element of law is involved in thismatter for adjudication.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There will be noorder as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shallstand closed.
_________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
Date: 02-08-2013YCR
_________________
K.C.BHANU, 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.