The High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upholding the Tribunal's view that interest on interim arbitral award deposits is taxable income.
The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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{181999) 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
I
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
28.12.2OO5 surbstantial question of larv was rrot framed. Frorn the memorandum of appeal, u,e finri that the \ I following is the subsrantial question of lau,:
2
th.e 'Whether oft the facts and in
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?
/
,
dated 02.O9 2014 held that opening of asses srnerltyear validitv anc that interest accrued on intt:rim award deposited in 3ank was income chargeable to ia:.
2OO5 was dis missed.
law as frame 1 is ansu,ered in favour of the resFondr.nt and
against asse: see.
Miscell .neolrs applications pendin61, if ,Lny shall
stand closed However, there shall be no order irs to costs.
To
//TRUE COPY//
SD/. I! S.(;HINRANJEEVI .]OI1.IT REGISTRAR - ,.. -, '
:iEC TION OFFICER
I
C-\l.+\
HIGH COUR'I
DATED:1911(t2022
ORDER
lTTA.No.430 rf 2005
-:-_=:,<br>c n
DISMISSING'THE IT-</sup>
15
)/
3\ A^ia
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interest earned on interim deposit made to High Court pending arbitration is taxable income when the underlying dispute is pending adjudication.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. R.S. Rangadas, Contractors
The Asst. Commissioner of I.T.
Ujjal Bhuyan
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
