Rc/51/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyd v. A.p.civil Supplies Corpn.ltd.hyd
High Court
11 Jun 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Rc/51/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyd v. A.p.civil Supplies Corpn.ltd.hyd
Date of order
11 Jun 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Rc/51/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyd v. A.p.civil Supplies Corpn.ltd.hyd, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.
Issue: SUNILCHOWDARYREFERENCE CASE No.51 of 1999JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,,J) This reference, under Section 256 of the IncomeTax Act, is made, at the instance of the Revenue forframing the following questions: 1) Whether on the facts and in the facts andcircumstances of the case the ITAT wascorrect in law in dism...
Decision: The Reference Case is, accordingly, disposed of.
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. NARASIMHAREDDYANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNILCHOWDARYREFERENCE CASE No.51 of 1999JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,,J)
This reference, under Section 256 of the IncomeTax Act, is made, at the instance of the Revenue forframing the following questions:
1) Whether on the facts and in the facts andcircumstances of the case the ITAT wascorrect in law in dismissing the departmentalappeal, following its order reported in 37 ITDPage-1, which was not an order passed by theITAT as held by the A.P. High Court in ITCNo.92 of 1991 dated 28.08.1992?
2) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT wascorrect in deleting the addition ofRs.41,60,031/- made by the AssessingOfficer?
Heard the learned Additional Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax, and the learned counsel for therespondent.
From a perusal of the order of reference, it is evidentthat similar questions arose in R.A.Nos.234 and 235 of1991. The present reference is in respect of R.A.No.203of 1996. R.C.No.59 of 1992 was in respect ofR.A.Nos.234 and 235 of 1991. Through a detailedjudgment, dated 04.03.2003, a Division Bench of thisCourt answered R.C.No.59 of 1992, holding that the view
taken by the Tribunal in its adjudicatory order was correct,and that the reference was unnecessary.
Following the same, we also express the view thatthe order of adjudication passed by the Tribunal is correctin all respects and the questions referred to this Court donot warrant any answer. We adopt the reasons furnishedin the judgment in R.C.No.59 of 1992 for this case also.
The Reference Case is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in the referencecase shall stand disposed of.
_____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
11[th] June, 2014cbs
____________________
T. SUNIL
CHOWDARY, J
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHAREDDYANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNILCHOWDARY
cbs
R.C.No.51 of 1999
11[th] June, 2014
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.