THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S NAVABHARAT FERRO ALLOYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD.

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/288/2011HC TelanganaHBHC01022105201119 February 2026Author: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the first substantial question of law, concerning the assessee's entitlement to a deduction of Rs. 11,32,97,807/- under Section 80-IA, was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. This decision was based on a prior judgment of the same High Court Bench in ITTA No. 251 of 2014, which was between the same parties and had decided this specific question of law. For the second substantial question of law, regarding the credit of MAT Credit before levying interest under Sections 234B and 234C, both the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (Assessee) fairly conceded that this issue had been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Tulsyan NEC Limited. Consequently, this question of law was also decided against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. The High Court found that the appeal failed based on these determinations. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax IV, Hyderabad, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 25-04-2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench 'A'. The ITAT's order pertained to Assessment Year 2004-2005 and concerned the assessee, M/s Navabharat Ferro Alloys Limited. The appeal was admitted for hearing on two substantial questions of law. The procedural history indicates that the High Court had previously admitted the appeal for hearing on these specific questions.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 11,32,97,807/- under Section 80-IA of the Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the MAT Credit should be given credit to before levying interest under Sections 234B & 234C? Assessee's arguments: The assessee relied on a previous decision of the same High Court Bench in ITTA No. 251 of 2014, decided on 18.06.2025, which was between the same parties, to support their entitlement to the deduction under Section 80-IA. For the second issue, the assessee, along with the revenue, conceded that the matter was settled by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Tulsyan NEC Limited. Revenue's arguments: The revenue did not present specific arguments for either issue in the judgment, but their appeal implicitly contested the ITAT's findings on both questions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80-IA,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
13447 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HoNOURABLE SRIJUSTICC P.SRIIT KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA AX TRI lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260A of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 25-04-2008 passed in ITA No.1220lHydl2OO7 for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'A', Hyderabad. Between: The Commissioner Of lncome Tax lV, Hyderabad. Appellant AND M/s Navabharat Ferro Alloys Limited, Navabharath Chambers, 6-3-110911, Raibhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500482 ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K SUDHAKAR REDDY (sENloR sc FoR INCOME TAX) Gounsel for the Respondent: SRI C V NARASIMHAM The Court made the following: JUDGMENT \ INTHE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA of 201 I .2 Between The Commissioner of lncome Tax IV, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND NtUs.Navabharat Ferro Alloys Ltd., Navbharath Chambers, Somaj iguda,Hyderabad. ...Respondent

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Ko.shy) Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar Reddy, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department, appearing for the appellant and Mr.C.V.Narasimham, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

2.

The instant appeal is one preferred by the Revenue under Section 26OAof the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short.,the Act, 1961") assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate

,'l 2 Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, in ITTA.No.l220t$ydl2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05. 3. The appeal stood admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law "

1.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction of Rs.l1,32,97,8071- under Section 80lA of the Act?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding the MAT Credit shoutd be given credit to before levying interest under Section 2348 &234 C?"

4.

Today, when the matter is taken-up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Assessee brought before this Court, the judgments pertaining to two questions of law framed to be adjudicated upon in the instant appeal. So far as the first question of law is, whether the Assessee is entitled for deduction of Rs.11,32,97,807/- under Section 80tA of the Act, 1961. The said question of law consequently answered by this very Bench in another ITTA.No.Z5| of 2014, which was decided on 18.06.2025 The said appeal was between the parties. [n view of the same, the question of law stands answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee I I I I t Iti IIt tIt I I Ii

ry 3 \

5.

So far as the question of law, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the MAT Credit should be given credit to before levying interest under Section 2348 & 234 C, leamed counsel appearing on either side fairly conceded the issue has already been laid to rest by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Tulsyan NEC Limitedr. 6. [n view of the authoritative decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, the second substantial question of law also stands decided against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.

7.

The Appeal fails and is accordingty dismissed. There shall be.no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. - siv: Moxo.isrurATl- - REGISTRAR ,,/' SECTION OFFICER The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'A', Hyderabad One CC to Sri K Sudhakar Reddy (Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX), Advocate loPUcI One CC to Sri C V Narasimham, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 w ABK /PSL t

/ I HIGH COURT DATED: 1910212026 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.288 of 2011 DISMISSING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS K.5 el=le-e 1 HE STA 3 o4 Arfl ?[26 * i:- k ..,,, .r* 'k $ .$f;i1'?'

More judgments on Section 80-IA

All 612 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →