Dismissed

M/S.R.S.Rangadas v. the Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

Telangana HC19 Oct 2022ITTA/406/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of an Income Tax Appeal arising from a substantial question of law regarding the taxability of interest earned on an interim award deposited in the bank before the High Court during pending adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the respondent.

M/S.R.S.Rangadas Vs the Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN} AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEC.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

INCOME TAX TRIBU NAL APPEAL^{NO: 406 OF} 2805

¶7

Appeal Under Section 260 A of^{the lncomeTax Act, 1961againstthe} order of the lncome Tax Appellate^{Tribunal,HyderabadBench "8" in ITA No.} 565 / HYD/2001⁽ A.Y. 1999-2OOO)^{dated 26-04-2005 preferred against the order} of the Commissioner of lncome^{Tax ( Appeals)} -ll,^{Hyderabaddated22-06-} 2001 in l.T.A. Nos. 25 , 89 & 88^{DC. 2 (21 I CIT (A)} -lU^{2000-2001preferred} against the order of the Deputy^{Commissionerof lncomeTax, Circle '2(2),} Hyderabad in PAN/GIR No.^{R-308 lOC.2(2)}

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. R.S.Rangadas, Contractors, Hyderabad. AND

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

The Asst. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle^{2[2], Hyderabad.}

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A.^{V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA}

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. RAJI REDDY,^{SENIOR SC FOR INCOME} TAX DEPT

¶15

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶16

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL E HIIYAN AND

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR Ii.EDDY

¶18

ITTA.No.4O6 of 2OO5

¶19

JUDGMENT: eet the Han'bte the Chpf Justte Uiat Bhugort)

¶20

Heard Mr. A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.Raji Reddy, learned Standing counsel lor Income Tax Department appearing for the re spondent.

¶21

This appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 196l (briefly the Act' hereinafter) against the order dated 26.04.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hyderabad Bench "B", in I.T.A.No.565/Hydl2OO1 for the assessmenr year 19992000

¶22

While admitting the appeal vide the order dated 13.12.2OO5, substantial question of 1aw ^,as not framed. From the memorandum of appeal, we find that following is the substantral question of lau,:

¶23

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstaftces of the case, Tibunal LUas justiJied in holding that the interest earned on the amount deposited in the Bank receiued as an inteim measure under directions of tlte High Coutl is an income uLhen the arbitraL a utard itself is in dispute and pending adjudication before the High Court?

¶24

Mr. A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, iearned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that this substantial question was also 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. Whilc disposing of LT.T.A.No.320 of 2005 vide order dated 21.09.2022, t]nrs Court held that Tribunal has followed its earlier decision dated 29.07.2OO2 in appeals filed by the appellant itself for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97.

¶25

Against the order dated 29.O7.2OO2, appellant had preferred appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the Act being I.T.T.A.No.168 of 2003. This Court by order

¶26

dated 02.09.2014 held that opening of assessment was valid and that interest accrued on interim award deposited

¶27

in Bank was income chargeable to tax

¶28

Follou,ing the above decision, ITTA No.32O of 2005 was dismissed.

¶29

7 . That being the position, the substantial question of

¶30

law as framed is answered in favour of the respondent and

¶31

against assessee

¶32

B. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶34

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

SD/. B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY// ,."tt[i o..,".*

¶36

¶37

The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,^{Hyderabad BenchB Hyderabad'}

¶38

The Commissionei of lncome^{Tax( Appeals)} -ll,^Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner^{of lncome Tax, Circle-2 (2)., Hyderabad'} 4. The Asit. eommissioner of^lncomeTax ,^{Circle'2 (2)} '^Hyderabad.

¶39

One CC to SRl. A. V.^{KRISHNAKOUNOINYA,Advocate} [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRl. K. RAJI^{REDDY,SENIOR SC FOR INCOMETAX DEPT [OPUC]} 7. Two CD Copies N Prti lu 5larl rf u -{q

HIGH COURT

HCJ & CVBRJ

DATED:1^911012022

S'tri , {' o
a
2 B t'li ?$n

¶44

ORDER

¶45

!TTA.No.406 of 2005

¶46

DISMISSING THE ITT'A WITHOUT^COSI'S

¶47

hn' frJr')

M/S.R.S.Rangadas v. the Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.R.S.Rangadas v. the Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Krishna Babu, S/o Late C. Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, repby

M/S. Classic Enterprises, Anup Ham Roy, Vs the Union of India, Govt of India, and Another

Jagdish Pershad Ladda, Vs Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Guna Complex

Kanuri Family Trust, repby its Chairman Sri Murali Vs The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (Huda), Paigah

V.Brahmachari, Died per Lrs 2 to 7 R.R District and amp Another Vs K.Shankaraiah, R.R Dist and 7 Others

M/S. R.S. Rangadas Vs the Asst. Commissioner of I.T. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad