PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 V. M/S.VBC FERRO ALLOYS LIMITED

ITTA/497/2018

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-S against the order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which had earlier upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal. The core issue was the deletion of disallowed interest debited to the Profit and Loss Account concerning investments in KGPL and shares in other companies. The Tribunal and the Commissioner had relied on a precedent set by the Bombay High Court, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of the Department's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719772 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited, Natco Pharma Ltd. Vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NO NE APPEARED
• Assessee Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Keywords: Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal); Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Interest disallowance; Investments; Profit and loss account; Shares; KGPL
• Section: 260-4

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY.THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRl JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.T.T.A.No: 497 ot 2O18 Income Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A' Hyderabad, in l.T.A.No.769lHydl2016, Assessment Year 2O06-20O7, dated 13-04- 2018, preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-S, Hyderabad, Appeal No.0512I2014-15lClT(A)-5, dated:29-02-2016, prefened against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle-3(3), Hyderabad PAN/G I R No. AAACV7258A,/V-4 dated 3 1 - 1 2-2008. Between: Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-S, 1Oth Floor, Signature Towers, Opp- Botanical Garden, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad. ..Appellant AND M/s.VBC Ferro Alloys Limited, 6-2-g13tg14,lll Floor, Progressive Towers, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. (PAN No.AAACV72S8A) ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.V. PRASAD, Sr. SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT, appearing for SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA\" Sr. SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTTCE N.TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A. No. 497 of 2O18 JUDGMENT Heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the appellant and perused the record. 2. The instant appeal has been hled by the Department assailing the order dated 13.04.2018 passed in I.T.A.No.769lHydl2016 by the lncome-Tax Appellate Tribuna] Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as \"the Tribunal\"). 3. Vide order dated 13.04.2018, the Tribunal had rejected the appeal preferred by the Revenue assailing the order dated 29.O3.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal. 4. The question of law to be considered by this Court while entertaining the appeal was whether the deletion of disallowed interest and debited to the Profit and Loss Account in respect of investrgents in KGPL and shares in other companies were without due appreciation of facts and reasons or not. However, when we go through the impugned order, it has been categorically reflected that the Commissioner of Income Ta-x Appeal, ,nilitl .o.r=iaering the appeal of the assessee had relied upon a decision of the Hon,ble 2 Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance lltllities and Pouer Lirnitedl. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal had also relied upon the decision renderid by the Tribunal on 09.01.2009 in I.T.A.No.3al/Hydl06 in the case of Natco Phanna Ltd., Vs. ACIT. 5. Today, when the matter is taken up for admission, on a query being put to the learned counsel for the Department, it has been informed that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has further been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby, the SLP preferred by the Revenue stands rejected affirming the orders passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 6. Given the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as also the Tribunal had followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which firrther stands a-ffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the question of law that now is being canvassed by the appellant cannot be said to be one which is a substantial question of law any further and neither can it be said that the Tribunal nor the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal had committed any error on their part in reaching to the said conclusion. 'lzooe; s ta trR 34o (Bom.) 3 I 7. In view thereof, we do not find any substantial question of law made out in the appeal and thus, the appeal fails and is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'A' Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-S, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA, Sr. SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT toPUcl 5. Two CD Copies u* o' i HIGH GOURT DATED:0711112023 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.497 of 2018 THE APPEAL IS REJECTED 1 e STAT€ o ( c q f, 2g N[ O i oEgPA N2 { 5rx "