R.S. Rangadas, Contractors V. The Asst. Commissioner of I.T., Circle 2 (2), Hyderabad

ITTA/430/2005

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. R.S. Rangadas, Contractors, who appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which had earlier upheld the taxability of interest earned on an interim award deposited in the bank. The appeal was heard by the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy. The substantial question of law considered was whether the interest earned on such deposits is taxable when the arbitral award itself is under dispute and pending adjudication. The court referenced its earlier decisions and upheld the taxability of the interest, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798642 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: I.T.T.A.No.320 of 2005, I.T.T.A.No.168 of 2003
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K RAJI REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V KAUNDINYA
• Keywords: Arbitral Award; Assessment Year; Bank deposit; Income Tax; Interest on Interim Award
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 430 OF 200s Appeal Under Section 260A of the lncome Tax Act, '1961 against the order dated 26-04-2005 in ITA No. 564 / HYD/ 2001 ( Assessment Year 19{18- 1999) on the file of the Court of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench \"8\" Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax ( Appeals )-ll, Hyderabad dated 22-06-2001 in ITA No. 25, 89 & 88 IOC 2(2) / CIT (A) -ll /2000-2001 preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome tax Circle -2 (2) , Hyderabad in PAN / GIR No. R - 308 I DC .2 (21. Between: M/s. R.S. Rangadas, Contractors, Hyderabad. ...APnELLANT AND The Asst. Commissioner of I.T., Circle 2 (2), Hyderabad Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI K. RAJI REDDY(SENIOR SC FOR rNcoME TAX DEPARMENT) The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE T ON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJ.IAI., ],} ]I YAN AND THE ION'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAIT FI'DD'' I.T.T.A..No.43O of 2OOS JUDGMENTT t)er the Hor t'ii ttt! Chtef iust,.e UjJol Bhuyar) Heard Mr. A.V.Krishna Kaundinya. lt:arn,:d counsel for the app'llant and Mr. K.Raji Reddy, lerr.rr.e,l Sitanding counsel fol Income Tax Department appea rirlg for the respondent 2. Th s appeal has been preferred trrrcler Section 260A of t re lncome Tax Act, 196 I (brie1r, 1.he Act' hereinafter| against the order dated 26.04.21OOS, petssed by the lncorr,e 'l'ai Appellate Tribunal, Hyderacal Bench uB\", in I.T.A.No.;6alHydl2OO1 for the assessment ye€Lr 1998- t999. 3. Wt ile admitting the appeal vide the r.,rdt:r dated 28.12.2OO5 surbstantial question of larv was rrot framed. Frorn the memorandum of appeal, u,e finri that the following is the subsrantial question of lau,: I I 2 'Whether oft the facts and in th.e ciranmstances of the case, Tribunal utas justified in holding that tLre interest earned on tLe amount deposited in th.e Bank receiued as an interim measure under directions of tle High Court is an income tuhen the arbitral a u.tard itself is tn dispute and pending adjudbation before the High Court? 4. Mr. A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that this substantial question was a-lso one of the substantial questions of law in I.T.T.A.No.320 of 2005 filed by the appellant itself for the assessment year of 1997-98. While disposing of I.T.T.A.No.320 of 2005 vide order dated 21.09.2022, this Court held that Tribuna-l has followed its earlier decision dated, 29.O7 .2OO2 in appeals filed by the appellant itself for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. 5. Against the order dated29.O7.2OO2, appellant had preferred appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the Act being I.T.T.A.No. 168 of 20O3. This Court by order I / , dated 02.O9 2014 held that opening of asses srnerlt year validitv anc that interest accrued on intt:rim award deposited in 3ank was income chargeable to ia:. 6. Foll rwing the above decision, I.T.T..t .1 o.320 of 2OO5 was dis missed. 7. That being the position, the substantial clue:;tion of law as frame 1 is ansu,ered in favour of the resFondr.nt and against asse: see. 8. The rresent appeal is accordingly rlisrni ssred Miscell .neolrs applications pendin61, if ,Lny shall stand closed However, there shall be no order irs to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. I! S.(;HINRANJEEVI .]OI1.IT REGISTRAR - ,.. -, ' :iEC TION OFFICER I To 1. The lncome T rx Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Il Flyderabad. z. The Commiss oner of lncome Tax ( Aipeals) -ll, Hydcr,:rba,J. 3. The Deputy-_C. rqqis-s19Le_-r.9!!19oqr9 tax, iircte -2 (2), Hyrterabad. 4. one cc to SRI A.v. {E!9!ry4 {guNqlNyA, Advocate jcriir:61 s. one cc to sRt. K. RAJ| REDDY, (sENtoR sc FoR tNco,rfrtr TAx'DEPT) topuc] 6. Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Cop , Kut gbr C- l.+- HIGH COUR'I DATED:1911( t2022 ORDER lTTA.No.430 rf 2005 DISMISSING'THE IT - )/ -:-_=:, c n 3 A^ia 15 "