Itta/614/2018 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. M/S Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIGE N.TUKARAMJI l.T.T.A.Nos:614 and630 of 2018 !.T.T.A.No.614 of 2018 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, [1961]arising out of the order of the lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad [Bench ][' ] [']Hyderabad, in l.T.A.No.1947lHYDlzO17, Assessment Year 2013-14, dated 08-06-2018, preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax [(Appeals) ][3,]Hyderabad, lTA.No.0554/DCIT/Cir-3(1)/C|T(A)-3120'16-17, dated:11-09-2017,preferred against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle-3(1),Hyderabad PAN/GI R No.AAFCS491 6D dated 02-12-201 6.Between: Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-3, Bth Floor, Signature Towers, Kondapur,Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND M/s Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, 3-6-478, 3'd Floor, Anand Estates, Opp: lndian Bank,Liberty Road, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad- 29. (PAN: ) ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]todispense with the filing of certified copy of the order of the lncome Tax AppellateTribunal in ITA No. 143O1H12013, dated 10-01-2014for A.Y.2005-06. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent: MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM l.T.T.A.N0.630 of 20'l 8 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lrrcome Tax Act, 1961'arising out of the order of the lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, l-lyderabad Bench ' B Hyderabad, in l.T.A.No.1948lHYDl2O17, Assessment Yeat 2014-15, dated 08-06-2018, preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) 3,Hyderabad, ITA No.0075/DCIT-3(1y CIT(A)-3I2016-17, dated:11-09-2017, preferredagainst the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle-3(1),Hyderabad PAN/GIR No. dated:3'1 -03-201 6.Between: Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-3, 8h Floor, Signature Towers, Kondapur,Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND M/s Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, 3-6-478, 3'd Floor, Anand Estates, Opp: lndian Bank,Liberty Road, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad- 29. (PAN: ) ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAXCounsel for the Respondent: MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT -) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{YANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.Nos.614 AND 630 OF 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) These appeals under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 , has been filed assailing the order, dated08.06.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad, (for short "the Tribunal")in I.T.A.Nos. l9a7/Hydl2O17 and l9a8lHydl20l7 for theAssessment Years 2O 13- 1 4 and 2014-15 respectively. 2. The questions of law framed for deciding these two appeals are as under:- "1. Whether, on the facts and ciranmstancesof the case, any in Ia ut, the Hon'ble ITAT iscorrect in upholding the claim of the assesseeutith regard to paAment of commission oncancelled chits? 2. Whether the facts and ciratmstances ofthe case, and in lou, the Hon'ble ITAT is corectin lana in upholding the claim of the assesseeuith regard to paAment of rogalty to its parentcompanA despite the fact that the parentcompdnA is not rendeing any seruices toassessee compang? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstan-ces ofthe case, the Hon'ble Tibunal is conect in lau' irtholding that claim for deduction of bad debtsutitten-qff is alloutable u/ s.36(1)(uii) or busrnessloss u/ s.28(1)or bad debts u/ s.37(1) oJ' [tlrc]Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. appeals are as under:- "1. Whether, on the facts and ciranmstancesof the case, any in Ia ut, the Hon'ble ITAT iscorrect in upholding the claim of the assesseeutith regard to paAment of commission oncancelled chits? 2. Whether the facts and ciratmstances ofthe case, and in lou, the Hon'ble ITAT is corectin lana in upholding the claim of the assesseeuith regard to paAment of rogalty to its parentcompanA despite the fact that the parentcompdnA is not rendeing any seruices toassessee compang? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstan-ces ofthe case, the Hon'ble Tibunal is conect in lau' irtholding that claim for deduction of bad debtsutitten-qff is alloutable u/ s.36(1)(uii) or busrnessloss u/ s.28(1)or bad debts u/ s.37(1) oJ' [tlrc]Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up fo: hearing, [the]learned counsel appearing for the [parties ][have ][produced]before this Court a common decision [of ]the [Division ][Bench]of this Court, decided on 09.06.2023 rn [I.T.'I.A.No.307 ][of]2OO5 and batch, whereby the [very ]sarne [issu.es ][have ][been]extensively and elaborately dealt with and [considered, ][arrd]finally the Division Bench has reached to ttre [t:onclusion]that there was no substantial [question ]of [law ][n-rade ]out [by]the Revenue in frling of the said appeals and the [question]of law stood decided in favour of the assessee and the [said]appeals were dismissed. 4. Given the fact that the question of lau's :rre [identical]in the present appeals a1so, we are of the consideredopinion that the instant two appeals also stald [decided ][in]terms of the order passed in I.T.T.A.No.3O7 ol 2005 [and]batch. As a consequence, the instant appeals of [the]Revenue fail and are accordingly dismissed. The [question] I PSI(,J & N?R,JI.T.T.A.No.614 and 63O o! 2O7a of law stands ansurered in favour of the assessee. Thereshall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous applications if any,shall stand closed.shall stand closed. Sd/. K. SRINIVASA JOINT REGISTRAR \.t5 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lncome-Tax [Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ][Bench ][' ] [' Hyderabad] 2. The Commissioner [of lncome Tax (Appeals) 3, Hyderabad'] 3. The Deputy [Commissioner of lncome Tax ][Circle-3('l)' ][Hyderabad'] 4. One CC to [J.V. ][PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX ] 5. One CC to SRI [KUNCHEAM, ][Advocate ] ]6. Two CD CoPies kamVH HIGH COURT DATED: 0211112023 COMMON JUDGMENTITTA.Nos.614 and 630 of 2018 THE APPEALSARE DISMISSED 1fi'\#'t\'11- I1[sE ] [re])+qJ,,t))0 [ [0E[ ][20n]C)-\..