Case LawHigh Court › Rc/34/1998 Of The Commissioner Of Income...

Rc/34/1998 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap-I Hyd v. M/S.park-Devis (India ) Ltd. Hyd

High Court 11 Feb 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Rc/34/1998 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap-I Hyd v. M/S.park-Devis (India ) Ltd. Hyd
Date of order
11 Feb 2014
Assessment year(s)
1987-88
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Rc/34/1998 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap-I Hyd v. M/S.park-Devis (India ) Ltd. Hyd, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMR.C. No.34 OF 1998 ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) At the instance of the Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench-‘B’ had referred the following questions of law said tobe arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1987-88in I.T.A.No.1328/Hyd/1991. 1.“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITATwas correct in law in holding that the assessee’s claim of liabilityfor the asst. year 1987-88 under the Drugs (Price Control) OrderAct, 1979 was a statutory liability and as such it was allowable?”was correct in law in holding that the assessee’s claim of liabilityfor the asst. year 1987-88 under the Drugs (Price Control) OrderAct, 1979 was a statutory liability and as such it was allowable?” 2.“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT was correct in allowing the assesse’s claim of liability forthe asst. year 1987-88 under the Drugs (Price Control) Order Act,1979?”ITAT was correct in allowing the assesse’s claim of liability forthe asst. year 1987-88 under the Drugs (Price Control) Order Act,1979?” 2) Sri Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theassessee would submit that the questions of law which have been raisedin the present referred case are squarely covered by the order dated05.12.2013 of this Court passed in R.C.No.124 of 1996. Sri S.R. Ashok,learned standing counsel for the revenue also concedes on this aspect. 3) We have perused the copy of the order dated 05.12.2013 passed bythis Court in R.C.No.124 of 1996 and we find that the questions of law aresimilarly identical to the questions which were the subject matter inR.C.No.124 of 1996. In that view of the matter, both the questions are required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against therevenue. 4) Accordingly, the Referred Case is disposed of answering both thequestions of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Noorder as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this R.C shallstand closed. 5) A copy of the order dated 05.12.2013 in R.C.No.124 of 1996 shouldbe tagged to the copy of this order. ____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J Date:11.02.2014.Gk ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAHAND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Gk R.C. No.34 OF 1998 Date:11.02.2014.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan