Pr. CIT v. Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 3375 (Tel-HC) IN THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT UJJAL BHUYAN & N. TUKARAMJI JJ. Pr. CIT v. Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. I.T.T.A. No. 31 of 2023 20 March, 2023 Appellant by: J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department Respondent by: None JUDGMENT *Ujjal Bhuyan J.* Heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department for the appellant. 2. Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the Act) against the Order dated 29-6-2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as the Tribunal) in Dy. CIT v. Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited [ITA Nos. 292, 293 & 294/Hyd/2019,dt. 29-6-2022] for the assessment year 2013-14. 3. The appeal has been preferred proposing the following as substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in holding that common expenditure for own production and sale of seeds and trading in other seeds can be apportioned between both on the basis of Cost of Goods Sold (CoGS) as against the turnover of each for arriving at profits? 4. Respondent is an assessee under the Act having the status of a company. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 3375 (Tel-HC)

IN THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT

UJJAL BHUYAN & N. TUKARAMJI JJ.

Pr. CIT v. Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd.

I.T.T.A. No. 31 of 2023

20 March, 2023

Appellant by: J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department

Respondent by: None

JUDGMENT

Ujjal Bhuyan J.

Heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department for the appellant.

2. Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the Act) against the Order dated 29-6-2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as the Tribunal) in Dy. CIT v. Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited [ITA Nos. 292, 293 & 294/Hyd/2019,dt. 29-6-2022] for the assessment year 2013-14.

3. The appeal has been preferred proposing the following as substantial question of law:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in holding that common expenditure for own production and sale of seeds and trading in other seeds can be apportioned between both on the basis of Cost of Goods Sold (CoGS) as against the turnover of each for arriving at profits?

4. Respondent is an assessee under the Act having the status of a company.