Itta/476/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax I v. M/S. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd
High Court
10 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/476/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax I v. M/S. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd
Date of order
10 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/476/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax I v. M/S. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently 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 TENTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
I.T.T.A. No.476 OF 2012
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-I
Hyderabad
..... Appellant
AND
M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,
LV Prasad Marg, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad.
.....Respondent
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be preferred against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated
07.02.2008 in relation to the assessment year 2004-
2005, on the following suggested questions of law:
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holdingthat the assessee was entitled to treat the un-recovered dues as business loss and is notperverse and liable to be set aside?
We have heard the learned counsel for theappellant and we have gone through the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learnedTribunal while deciding this matter has followed itsearlier decision in the assessee’s own case in ITANo.274/Hyd/02 and 141/Hyd/03 for the assessmentyear 1999-2000 being dated 15.09.2006. There is nostatement before us that the said decision was carriedin appeal and the same was upset. Therefore, we donot see any reason to interfere with the impugnedjudgment and order.
Consequently we dismiss the appeal. No order asto costs
______________________
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.
__________G.Rohini, 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.