Itta/424/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iv v. Natco Pharma Limited
High Court
18 Sep 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/424/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iv v. Natco Pharma Limited
Date of order
18 Sep 2013
Assessment year(s)
2007-2008
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/424/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iv v. Natco Pharma Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the orderof the Tribunal is not perverse? b.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal is correct in allowing the assessee’sclaim for interest of Rs.1,32,78,739/-?
Decision: Accordingly, 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 EIGHTEENTH DAY OFSEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
I.T.T.A. No.424 OF 2013
Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad
..... Appellant
AND
Satya Prasad Anagani
.....Respondent
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be admitted in relation tothe assessment year 2007-2008 on the followingsuggested questions of law:
a.
Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the orderof the Tribunal is not perverse?
b.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal is correct in allowing the assessee’sclaim for interest of Rs.1,32,78,739/-?
We have heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned counselfor the appellant and gone through the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learnedTribunal on fact found that the Assessing Officer doesnot have any basis for the addition. Moreover, it is alsonoted that the issue is covered in favour of theassessee by the decision of the learned Tribunal inassessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years.In that view of the matter, we do not find any element oflaw involved in this appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. No order asto costs.
______________________
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.
_____________
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.