I.t.t.a v. Baumik Colour Privatelimited (Ita

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.484 OF 2014 DATED: 25.07.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad … Appellant And M/s.KSR Infracon Private Ltd … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.484 of2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) Judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated24.12.2013 in I.T.A.No.479/Hyderabad/2011 in relation tothe assessment year 2007-08 is brought under challengebefore us. We have heard Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learnedcounsel for the appellant and gone through the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned Tribunal. In this case, it is to be seen that whether theexpression ‘dividend’ under Section 2(22)(e) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 is applicable to the facts and circumstancesof the case. The Tribunal having noted that identical issueraised by the Department was considered and decided bythe Special Bench, Mumbai in ACIT v. Baumik Colour PrivateLimited (ITA.No.5030/Mum/04)[[1]],following the same held that it was not dividend. It is not a case of Revenue before us that the decisionof the aforesaid Special Bench has been upset by superiorforum. We therefore do not find any ground to interfere withthe impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as tocosts. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 25[th] JULY, 2014. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni [1]118 ITD 1 (SB)