Itta/64/2002 Of Comm. Of Income Tax Hyd v. M/S Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd Hyd
High Court
22 Jul 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/64/2002 Of Comm. Of Income Tax Hyd v. M/S Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd Hyd
Date of order
22 Jul 2014
Assessment year(s)
1991-92
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/64/2002 Of Comm. Of Income Tax Hyd v. M/S Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd Hyd, the High Court (2014) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The miscellaneous petition filed in this appealshall also stand disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDARAMI.T.T.A.No.64 of 2002
JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)
This appeal under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by theDepartment feeling aggrieved by the order, dated28.02.2001 passed by the Hyderabad Bench of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No.2117/H/96. The subject matter is the returns filed by therespondent for the assessment year 1991-92.
The respondent is a sugar factory and isassessed to tax. In the returns filed for theassessment year referred to above, various itemswere mentioned. The item that is relevant for thepurpose of this appeal is the claim pertaining to theexpenditure incurred under ‘social overheads’. Theassessing authority disallowed 1/3[rd] of the said claim. On an appeal preferred by the respondent, theCommissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim.Thereupon, the appellant filed appeal before theTribunal and through the order under appeal, it wasdismissed. The following substantial question of lawwas framed:
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is correct in deleting the disallowanceof Rs.79,96,683/- being 1/3[rd] of the expenditure claimedunder ‘social overheads’ ?
Heard learned counsel for the appellant andlearned counsel for the respondent.
The substantial question of law raised in thisappeal is identical to question No.3 in I.T.T.A.No.6 of2002. Incidentally, the said appeal is between thesame parties. The only difference is that the subjectmatter of the present appeal is in respect of a differentassessment year. We answered the very question inI.T.T.A.No.6 of 2002 against the appellant.
Following the same, we dismiss this appeal.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this appealshall also stand disposed of. There shall be no orderas to costs.
____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
________________________
CHALLA
KODANDA RAM, J
Date: 22.07.2014JSU
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDARAM
JSU
I.T.T.A.No.64 of 2002
Date: 22.07.2014
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.