Case LawHigh Court › Itta/424/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income-...

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.
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