In Rc/128/1997 Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal v. A.p.s.c.s.corp Ltd Hyderabad, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Issue: Meena Kumari) In this case, under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thefollowing question is referred to this Court for opinion: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT is correct in law in holding that theassessee is a charitable institution within the meaning...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI& THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAOREFERRED CASE NO :128 of 1997
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
In this case, under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thefollowing question is referred to this Court for opinion:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT is correct in law in holding that theassessee is a charitable institution within the meaning ofSection 2 (15) of the I.T. Act?”
When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by both the Counselthat the above referred question is covered by a judgment of a DivisionBench this Court in R.C.No.59 of 1992, dated 4.3.2003.
Following the above judgment, the above referred question isanswered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Accordingly, the reference is answered.
__________________________
Justice T. Meena Kumari
_____________________________
Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao
Date: 8[th] June, 2010 nn.
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
REFERRED CASE NO : 128 of 1997(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
8/06/2010
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.