Case LawHigh Court › Rc/47/1998 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax...

Rc/47/1998 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap-I Hyd v. Parke Davies (India)Ltd. Hyd

High Court 23 Jan 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Rc/47/1998 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap-I Hyd v. Parke Davies (India)Ltd. Hyd
Date of order
23 Jan 2014
Assessment year(s)
1988-89
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Rc/47/1998 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap-I Hyd v. Parke Davies (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 RAM R.C. No.47 OF 1998 ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) At the instance of revenue, two questions of law said to be arising fromthe order of the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.2159/Hyd/1992 for the assessment year1988-89, are referred for the opinion of this court. 2. Questions are set out below: 1.“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the asseessee’sclaim of liability for the assessment year 1988-89 under theDrgus (Price Control) Order Act, 1979 was a statutory liabilityand as such it was allowable?” 2.“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the ITAT was correct in law in allowing the assessee’s claim ofliability for the assessment year 1988-89 under the Drugs(Price Control) Order Act, 1979?” 3. The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee following its earlier order for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1985-86 inI.T.A.No.567/Hyd/87. 4. The learned counsel for both the parties would submit as against theorders of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1985-86, twoidentical questions of law were referred to this Court and this Court by orderdated 05.12.2013 in R.C.No.124 of 1996 had answered the questionsagainst the revenue and in favour of the assessee. On perusal of the saidorder dated 5.12.2013 in R.C.No.124 of 1996, we find that the question No.1in the present R.C is identical with the question No.3 and question No.2 isidentical with question No.2 of the questions referred in R.C.No.124 of1996. In view of the order passed in R.C.No.124 of 1996, both thequestions are required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against revenue as well. 5. Accordingly, the Referred Case is disposed of answering the questionNos.1 and 2 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No order asto costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Referred Caseshall stand disposed of. 6. Let a copy of the order dated 05.12.2013 in R.C.No.124 of 1996 betagged to the copy of this order. ______________________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J Date:23.01.2014. Gk. _____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Gk R.C. No.47 OF 1998 Date:23.01.2014.
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