Final Order disposing of appeal ITA No.48 of 2022 wherein the High Court dismissed the appeal against Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order for assessment year 2008-09.
None. Appeal dismissed on being found unfit for adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3311 ]
IN THE HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY THE SIXTEENTHDAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THECHIEF JUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLESRIJUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
INCOME TAX TRIBUNALAPPEAL NO: 48OF 2022
(lncome Tax Tribunal AppealUnderSection 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, against the orderof the lncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, HyderabadBench'B" Hyderabad in ITANo.905/Hyd/2016,for assessment Year 2008-09 dated23-o7- 2021 ,preterred againstthe order of the commissionerof lncomeTax (Appeals)-7 Hyderabad, ITA No.1068/ClT(A)-7l2014]15, daled 25-02-2016,preferredagainst theOrderofthelncomeTaxOfficer,Ward-9(4),HyderabadPAN/GIR No.ACJPC0241J,dated20-06-2015.)
Between:
The Pr. Commissionerof lncome-tax-4, Hyderabad
"'APPELLANT
AND
Sri. Lokesh Chigullapally'B-1 3. New Fru it. Market-Crcmplex, Kothapet' CiOOiannara.,-nyO'erabaO- 500 036. PAN. ACJPC0241 B
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. J. V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOMETAx)
Counsel for the Respondent:None appeared
The Court made thefollowing:
r ]: E, l-{ QN' tl.L .E I r ! l: qrlIIl_FJusT I c r i U_IJA L. B r l U-yAN
A\LD
T lcr jr j o N'rl r_r j_ s RlJ usl' r c E N. LU K4 R, \ MJ I
I.-I.l'.A.No..l 8 t>f 2022
t.lDGh{Er.l'I i. cr rtt,' ttrt , t, t ix '!,.. l'r/'r/ Il/rr),lt)
f lcrLrr J',fr.J.'.Pr':rsacl, lcarncd Ser-rior Standirre (.r;ulscl, Income l'ru D:1-nrtr l( ni f()r rhc altpcllant
2 'i lri; z npc:rl hrrs bercn prcfcrrcd by thc rcven Lr. rrs the tppcllant rrndcr icctr( n 2(r0,\ ctf rltc lncor-nc'l'ax r\cr . 1961 (tr e flv,thc Act, hcrcina ftc-) ig:ailsr rhc or Jt,r ilarccl 23.07.201 I Passt,cl by thc lncome 'l'ax Appcih : I'ribunri, ilrcicrabad Rench 'B', Hydcr.rbad (bncfly .the 'l ribunrr[' lr,- :,naftcr) in | 'l' . No.905/Hyd/20 L6 [rrr r]re assessment \rcar 20()B 20rlt.
t I
I I
1
asscssingofErcer thougl'r thcnssessinqofficelcategotically bouglrt on recordthatt[rr: asscsscc s ttrtenuonts cleatlv bcyondthe pun'ictt' - of the lcgrslativelntcnt and cannot be classificdas fallingwithinthc cxempriortsullLlct i(cll{'rt IiI{) of the '\ct7
purchase theland for Sflhetheran agnculturist "vould agriculruralpurPoses at the priceat which *re landwas soldand whethcrthc owner wouldhave eversold the laodvaluilgit as a property fieldingagriculturalptoduce on the basisof its vield fotlowingthc law laid downb-v the GularatHigh Oourt in the case of CITv. Siddharth J Desai (1983) 139 Il'R 628 (Gui) which testrvas irlsoconsideredby the Supreme Courtir-r the caseofsarifaBlBlMohammedreportedifl0gg3)204ITR 631(Sq.
I [
I
3
is l]sor-lisrnlst'rl c'n thtl \ ef: s'tltlc tcasotrs I 1'. l'.,r..\ -10 o {' 2022rvas
clismissctl
No r:<.rs t: 5 ,,cr:r'rJn 1h'.this eppcrl is tlistrisscd i\r : l,.luel,lnisccllrrrlc()Lis llclltiorls' Ilcnd rl -1 iarlv' stand
ckrsetl
Sd,-F:.SFIINIVASARAO JCINT REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// t 1p,
SEC TION OFFICER
To, 1 . Thelncome T 'x Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad Be nch' B', Hyrlerabad i. i';; i;;;issrrrei of lncomeTax(Appeals)-7 Hvcerab a7
DL
wQ
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 6/06/2023
JUDGN{ENT lTTA.No.48 of20:22
Iu\ l$E i'l)
:.'
DISMISSING TIIE ^] P ]AL
I
L9
1
4 <br>oe(
The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Hyderabad
Sri. Lokesh Chigullapally
Ujjal Bhuyan
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
