THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
I.T.T.A. No. 497 of 2018
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 filed by the Department assailing the order dated 13.04.2018 passed in I.T.A.No.769/Hyd/2016 by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal 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 29.03.2016 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 investments 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 Tax Appeal, while considering 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 Utilities and Power Limited 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal had also relied upon the decision rendered by the Tribunal on 09.01.2009 in I.T.A.No.341/Hyd/06 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 further stands affirmed 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.
1 (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) 3
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.
_________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ___________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Dated: 07.11.2023 Pvt 4 170 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A. No. 497 of 2018 Dated: 07.11.2023 Pvt