Case LawHigh Court › Rc/43/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax...

Rc/43/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Sneha Vinyal Products P. Ltd

High Court 26 Nov 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Rc/43/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Sneha Vinyal Products P. Ltd
Date of order
26 Nov 2014
Assessment year(s)
1990-91
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Rc/43/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Sneha Vinyal Products P. Ltd, the High Court (2014) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

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.43 of 2002 ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) This reference case is filed by the Department against theorder, dated 20.06.2000, passed by the Hyderabad Bench ‘B’ of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), inR.A.No.2/Hyd/98 (in I.T.A.No.1446/Hyd/93). The matter is referableto the assessment year 1990-91. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent suffered anorder of assessment, and it could not get any relief even before theTribunal also. The application was filed seeking reference to thisCourt and the same was rejected. The matter was taken to theSupreme Court and ultimately, the R.A. was allowed, referring thefollowing question to this Court: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the I.T.A.T., was correct in holding that thedepreciation written back and credited to Profit & LossAccount be considered for arriving at book profit withinthe meaning of the Explanation to Section.115?” Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Standing Counsel for theDepartment, and Sri Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel for therespondent. The case was the subject-matter of the proceedings up to thestage of Supreme Court. However, during the pendency of theseproceedings, a substantial development has taken place. TheC.B.D.T. issued a circular in exercise of power under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stipulating the limits, in the context ofpursuing remedies by the Department. If we take into account thefinancial limits stipulated in the circular, which is in force as of now, itemerges that the subject-matter of the case is within the limits sostipulated. Therefore, we decline to answer the reference. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. _____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J. Date:26.11.2014 GJ
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