The Commissioner of Income Tax-I V. Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited

ITTA/89/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited concerning an income tax assessment for the year 2003-04. The appeal was directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which had earlier remanded one issue back to the Assessing Officer and dismissed another issue due to lack of evidence. The High Court of Telangana, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the Tribunal's findings, decided not to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719952 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M VENKATARAM REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year; Expenditure; Income Tax; Public policy; Tribunal
• Section: 2604

Judgement Text

"[ 3386 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 89 of 2019 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad in ITA No.739/Hydl20O7, Assessment Year: 2003-04, dated 29-1O-2O1O preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax , (Appeals)-ll, Hyderabad, ITA No.0558/CIT(A)-1U05-06, dated:30-03-2007 preferred against the Order of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle -1(2), Hyderabad, PAN/GIR No. AAACD 7999 Q, dated 27-02-2006. Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, Hyderabad ...Appellant AND Dr.Reddy's Laboratories Limited, 7-1-2T,Ameerpet,Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.V. PRASAD, Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX appearing for SRI S.P. CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent: SRI M. VENKATRAM REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE ]{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSIil' AND THE HON'BLI} SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYA.NA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A.No.89 of 2OL9 ORI)ER: (per aon ? 'e .Sn Jushce P. S,AII KosIIn) Heard Sri J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standin6l Oounsel for Income Tax appr:aring for the appellant and Sri Si.P. C )-rirlanrbaram, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the recorcl. 2. With the consent of the parties, this appezLl wa:; tuken up on admission. 3. This appr:a[ has been filcd assaiiing the order dated 29.lO.2OlO pas,;ed in ITA.No.739 lHyd/2OO7 fcrr thr: li.ssr:ssment Year 2O03-04 c n the file of the learned lncome Ta-.: Appellate Tribunal, Hyder:rbad Bench 'B', Hvderabad (hen:inaflr:r referred to as 'the Tribunal' . 4. A perusal of the findings given by the Tritrunal w,rulC reveal that in respect cf the Issue No.l, the Tribunal has in fact acceded to the request of the Departmental representativ( befcre the Tribunal and h 1s remanded back the matter to tlre Ar;sessing Officer for fresh :onsideration of the issue and as far rts Issue No.2 is concerned, there is a categorical finding given b-y the l'ribunal that the Depart nent has not brought on record anv inalerial to substantiate thr' contention that the expenditure ircurred was against public p<,[icy so as to disallou, the same. ) ) PSKJ & LNA J l.T.T.A.No.89 of 20 lq On due consideration of the above, we do not find any substantial question of law made out by the appellant calling for an interference with the impugned order dated 29.1O.2023 passed by the Tribunai. ., Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// a SECTION OFFICER The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad. The Commissioner of lncome Tax , (Appeals)-ll, Hyderabad. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle -1(2), Hyderabad One CC to SRI J.V. PRASAD, Senior SC FOR INCOME TAX [OPUC] One CC to SRI M. VENKATRAM REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 6 The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs_ Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha stand closed. kam pr 2 I To, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. HIGH COUR DATED:2510t112023 ORDER lTTA.No.89 ol 2019 THE APPEAL ISTANDS REJECTED t, /,':: ft,) lr(j 3[ [[I ?m 1$E STAI€ i+ (-,, v4 . / I o> "