What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the Tribunal's order to be well-reasoned and dealing with all contentions. No substantial question of law was made out.

The Revenue preferred an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order was well-reasoned and whether any substantial question of law arises from it.

PCIT vs M/s. Paras Collins Distilleries | Telangana High Court 2023

[ 3386 ] TAX lncome Tax Tribunar Appeal Under section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the rncome{ax Apperate Tribunar, Hyderabad Bench , B , Hyderabad, in rrA No.391/Hydt2o13, for assessment year 2006_07 dated 1i_1 1_ 2016 preferred against the order of the commissioner of rncome Tax (Appears)-rv, Hyderabad, Appeat No.34ltro 6 (3yclr (A)-tv/2o11-12 dated:1i_01_2013, preferred against the Order of the tncome Tax Officer, Ward _ 6(3), Hyderabad, pAN/GlR No.AABCP2155M/p-366 dated 31_12_08. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAN GANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. LAXMI NARAYANA INCOME TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 327 oF 2018 The Pr. Commissioner of lncome Tax_4, Hyderabad Between: AND M/s. Paras Collins Distilleries, Valley View, Road No..l2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Counset for the Appelllant: SRt J.V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel forthe Respondent: None Appeared The Court delivered the foilowing: JUDGMENT ...Appellant ... Respondent 1

\ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICD P.SAM KOSI{Y AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE A. LAXMI NARAYANA LT.T.A. No.327 of 20LA J!I_D._G!4ENI. r,,., it,,t i:i, .rAxr riosrry/ The present appcal urici(,r Scctio n 260A o[ tite Income tax Act. 196 1 , challenge s ro lh(. order of Income Tax Appellate 'l'riburral. Hvderabad Bench .B,, ll-,i.4..rbud ([or short. ,the Tribunal') in I.T A No..l9 I ll.\dl2Ol 3. clecicled on I t.l 1.2016. 2. Vide Lhe sairl inrpugnccl order, the Tribunat has allou,ed tht. 3pps^1 of tlrc ersr;csst_-c nncl at the samc time had dismissed the appeal fited by lhe Rer,<,nuc. 3. Upon going I lrrolrgh tlre impr_rgneci orcler and also considering thc subrrrissrons put lor.rh b-v Lhc learned counsel for the Revenue, we are of tlrc considered opinion that the impugned order is a u,r:ll rcasoned speaking order, dealing lt,ith all the grounds and contenLions raised by the appellant in the prescnl appeal as weU. 4. As such, ',r,e do not find any substantial qucsl.ion of law made out calllng for.;,rn inter.fcrcrlcc \\.ith the irnpug;rlcl order I \ \

2 ffi I,\ 5 The zrppcal ltrils ar-rcl is accordingly rcjected No order as to shall star-rd closed CoS tS. To, Ecr.C^. 6. Consequentl,r', miscellaneous petitions pending' if an1 ' I I Sd/.M.VIJAYA BHASKAR JOINT REGISTRAR \. \,'"ir L iJ rl SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// 1. The lncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'B ' Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-lV, Hyderabad. 3. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3), Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRI J,V. PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies kam \

HIGH COURT DATED:0210812023 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.327 of 2018 THE APPEAL IS REJECTED {Ac^, 1$ firit 9 SrArt a a: "l\{* :1

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/s. Paras Collins Distilleries

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments