M/S.R.S.RANGA DAS V. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITTA/417/2006

AI Insights

The case involves M/S R.S. Ranga Das, the appellant, who contested the income tax levied on interest accrued from a deposit. This deposit was made following an arbitration award, where the appellant was required to deposit 50% of the awarded amount. The main legal issue was whether the interest earned on such a deposit should be considered taxable income. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had earlier ruled in favor of the tax authorities, and this decision was upheld by the High Court of Telangana.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758120 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITTA No. 570 / Hyd/ 2003
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Arbitration award; Assessment Year 2000-01; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Interest on deposit
• Section: 148; 260A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 4't7 OF 2006 lncome Tax Appeal Under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench \"A\" Hyderabad dated 30-01-2006 in l.T.A.No. 570 / Hyd/ 2003 ( A.Y. 2000-01 ) preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax ( Appeals ) -V, Hyderabad dated 27-01- 2003 in ITA No.0314 /AC-4 (1) / CIT (A) -V 12002-03 preferred against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome tax , Circle 4 (1), Hyderabad dated 28-03-2002 in PAN / GIR No. R- 308 Between M/S.R.S.Ranga Das. Rlo.2-2-1137131C11, New Nallakunta, Contractors, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND The Asst. Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 4 [1], Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V.A SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. SAPNA REDDY for SRI J.V.PRASAD (sc FoR rNcoME TA)() The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE H DTIi!E]I.IJE CHIEFJUSTICE UJJAL BHI]Y4]! AND ON' LE RI ST CE T RAM tt I.'I T.A o 7 TI tE f 06 JUDGMENT, p,, ,hc Hor'bh lhe ( /,14 lt,tt.! t litrt l)ttlt),,) appcllanr and l,{s. Sa Heard N r. A. r.A.Sir.a Itarrikcya, Icarnc..l c()r.rrr scl lor the respondent 2' 1'his appt al has bcr:n prcfcr'ccr urrclcr Sccri.n r,i;-r of thc Income Tax Ac , 19(r1 @ricflt ,thc . cr, hc.rcinrfre r) I>r rlrc rissessee against the ord :r datcd 10.01 .20()6 passe tl [r' rhc .:,r.rc .l,ax Appellate l-ribu; al, II'de.rb.cl IJc..c. ,. ,. IIrcl.r.rr':rrl ,l.rrbrrral) in I f'A.No.5l0/H,d/2003 firr rhc ass.ss.rer)t .(,:rr )(){ r0 ,}1. 3. Learned c runsel [or thc lpDcllarrr J:rrrlr sui;rrrit; rhar issuc raiscd in this ap;:ar is sguarcl' c,r crctr lrr :r trccr:i,rr rt rhis (_.urt datcd 02.09.2014 c:,ssed rn [.'1 .'1.. o 6fi ()i](rol rrrtl b;rt:h. pnx ltcddr-, lcarnccl cr.rrrrs<,1 ior the ln i I I I I I I I I I +. Relevant p rricn of thc or-clcr rl:rrc,l 02 1( lo l_r p1s;cci I.'l'.'l'.r .No.68 of 2(01 tncl l>rrch rr.:rtls :rs lr,llor,. s_ Though the aJ,pcllant .riscrj :r :rronr, plr..L rlrlrr 1lrt. ,rr..lt.r ol assesstncnt lbr thc ycrr 199.r !(r riLrriht r)()r r, ) itll t, l1111 / 2 reopencd by issrung a show cause noricc undcr Section 148 of the Act, we are not impresscd bv th:rt argumcnt. The reason cited by the assessing officcr for reopcnir-rg of the assessment is valid aod reFerable to the facts that can be verified ftom the tecord. Coming to the sccond aspect: It has airea