M/s. Sarvotham Care Limited, vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

13447 l HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NOS: 223 oF 2008 AND 210 0F 2010 INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 223 OF 2008 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act,1 961 against the Order dated 2910212008 passed in ITA No.871/HYD/06 for the Assessment Year 2003-2004 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad. Between: Mis. Sarvotham Care Limited,, Secunderabad ...APPELLANT AND Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax,, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. S RAVI Counsel for the Respondent: SMT. K MAMATA CHOWDARY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 210 OF 2010 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 18/06/2009 passed in ITA No.804/HYD/06 for the Assessment Year 2OO4-2OO5 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad.

,.;), \ Between: M/S, SAI]VOTHAM CARE LTD, A COTUPANY, Companre ,s Act 1956 having its registered office Complex Rasoolpura, Secunderabad, rep by its M.lrlohan Krishna, S/o. Sri M.t\,4.Jaya the provisions of the at 1 20-248, Umajay It4anaging Director Mr. ..APPELLANT AND DEPUTY ,IOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Circle-3 r 1), Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. CH PUSHYAM KIRAN Counsel forthe Respondent: SMT. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (SENtOR SC rNcoME TAX) The Court delive,red the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

.1-^-- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SIU JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA I.T.T.A.Nos.223 OF 2008 & 210 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice l'.Sam Koshy) IJeard Ms. B. Nishitha, learned counscl representing Mr. S. Ravi, lcamed counsel fbr the petitioner ancl Ms. B. Sapna l{cddy, Iealned Senior Standing Counsel tbl lncorne l'ax Dcparlment appearing fbr the respondent. Perused the record 2. These appeals have bcen fited by the assessec under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, l96l (for short'the Act'), assailing the orders, dated 29.02.2008 and 18.06.2009, passed llt I.'l'.A.Nos.87liHydl06 and I.T.A.No.804iHydl06, by the lncomc Tax Appellate Tlibuna[, IJydetabad, (for short, 'thc 'l'r'ibunal'), Bench 'A for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively, so far as the petitioner is entitled fbr thc beneflt under Section 80lB of thc Act, even after losing its character of small scale industry. 3. Today, when the mattel is tekgn up for hearing, learned counsel for the panies brought to the notice ol this Court that the

2 \ 'l'hree Judgc Bench decision ol'the Hon'ble Su treme Court dealt ivith t re said issue in f)eputv Commissioncr of Income 'fax, Circle I I ( I )., Ilangalore v. Acc Multi Axes Svstems Limitedr, and where tlrc Hon'ble Supreme Cou(, in paragrrrph Nos.2t to 23 has held as u ndcr' '21 In vicu, of the abovc judgrnents. wc <kr :rot see any <liflcrcncc in thc situatiou rvhcrc the asscsscc, is not iuitially t ligrblc, or u,hero the asscsscc though initially cligibLc loses thc rluali[ication oi eligibility in subsequelt asscss]rcnt ycars. In [,oth sLrch sltuatlons, priuciPle of intcrplctation 'cmains tho s aIIC. !2. Thus, rvhilc there is no conflict u,ith thc lrrinciple that irterlrct:rtiou has h bc givcrr to advance thc objctt of lau,, in t re l)rcscnl casc, the assessec having not rctaincrl thc character cf "surall-scale industrial undertaking", is not cligible kr the irccntrrc rncant fbr that catcgttry. Pennitting inccttive il such casc urll bc against the objcct of larv. 23. Iior the above lcasons. wc hold that thc al:icscc ts not entitlccl to bcnclit of exetnptiorl if it loses its cl 11ibility as a small scalc induslrial undcdaking in a particLrlir assesstncnt )ear cvcn if in initial year clrgibility r.vas satrsficd" l'he IIon'ble Supreme Courl in the abo,,c case decided that the ass,:ssee. in such circuntstances would nol bc entitled fbr the '(zors) z ;cc rss I t, li i

t i , benefit under Section 80IB fiom the moment it loses its character from the small-scale industry. 4. ln view of the above, these two appeals stand decided against the assessee in favour of the revenue. 5. Accordingly, both the appcals stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shall stand closed. D/- A.V.S. PRASAD D UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench 'A" Hyderabad One CC to SRl. S RAVI Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SMT. K MAMATA CHOWDARY Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. CH PUSHYAM KIRAN Advocate [OPUC] oneCCtoSMT'BoKARoSAPNAREDDY(SENIoRScINCoMETAX) To, I 2 3 4 5 6 Two CD CoPies TPK/gh S,- --->

HIGH COLIRT DATED:2610612025 \- G^.'\ \ l t 19 sEP 2025 lr/ [,) COMMON JUDGMENT lTTA.Nos.1l23 o12008 and 210 of 2010 ITTA ARE REJECTED i I I,fl^ ff-w l i I I I ll t: ; 1 i I I : i : I I I I , ii i I I l