Rc/40/1998 Of M/S.apsrtc. Hyderabad v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap-I Hyd
High Court
16 Feb 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Rc/40/1998 Of M/S.apsrtc. Hyderabad v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap-I Hyd
Date of order
16 Feb 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Rc/40/1998 Of M/S.apsrtc. Hyderabad v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap-I Hyd, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Issue: The following questions are referred to this Court by theTribunal in an application filed by the respondent: 1. “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in law in holding that the applicant was notentitled to deduction under S.11 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, on...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
R.C.No.40 of 1998
ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
This R.C. is filed at the instance of APSRTC, which feltaggrieved by the order, dated 31.12.1996 passed by the HyderabadBench ‘A’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, inI.T.A.No.1717/Hyd/1995.
Heard Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya, learned Senior Counsel forthe applicant, and Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for therespondent.
The following questions are referred to this Court by theTribunal in an application filed by the respondent:
1.
“Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in law in holding that the applicant was notentitled to deduction under S.11 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, on the ground that the applicantcorporation carried on the work of theapplicant, ignoring the fact that by statute theemployees of the corporation are regarded asa class of beneficiaries of the applicant?
2.
Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal wasright in law in holding that the salariedemployees were not beneficiaries in the teethof S.30 of the Road Transport Act, 1950?
3.
Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wascorrect in not considering the distinctionbetween an organisation carrying on business
and an organisation carrying on the activitieson business principles brought out by theHon’ble Supreme Court in the applicant’s owncase as reported in 159 ITR page 1, for thepurpose of considering the applicability ofS.11(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
This, in fact, is part of a batch of references. In identicalmatter, being R.C.No.141 of 2000, which too at the instance ofAPSRTC, we dealt with those very questions and answered infavour of the applicant.
Following the same, we answer the reference in favour of theapplicant-Corporation. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall alsostand disposed of.
____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
_____________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.
Date:16.09.2014
GJ
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.