Dismissed

Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Telangana HC8 Aug 2023ITTA/97/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning disallowance of agricultural income. The court held no substantial question of law existed as the impugned orders provided adequate justification.

What did the court decide?

The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected; the impugned order was upheld.

Sunil Kumar Ahuja Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. LA(MI NARAYANA

¶8

INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL AP PEAL No: 97 OF 2023

¶9

Income Tax Tribunar Appear Under section 260-4 of the rncome Tax Act, 1g61 , arising out of the order of the rncome-tax Appelate Tribunar, Hyderabad Bench , A Hyderabad, in lrA No.158/Hydl2o22, for assessment year 20.10-1.1 dated 1g-05_ 2023 preferred against the order of the commissioner of rncome Tax (Appears)-11, Hyderabad, Appear No.100g2t2o1g-2o dared:28-02-2022, preterred against the order of the Deputy commissioner of rncome Tax centrar circre-1, Hyderabad PAN/clR No.ABLPA2B22L dated 31-03-2013.

¶10

Between:

¶11

9qlit Sylgt 4huja,^{S/o Late K.N.Ahujar} 4Sqd^{54 years,} Occ. Business, R/o H.No-6-3-596/72, Naveen Nagar, Bdhind^" Taj Kiishna,^{-til;"-r;bil"ibA"ru:} ABLPA2822L)

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle^.1(1 ), Hyderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the order dated 18-05-2023 passed by l!"^{lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, ,A, Bench, Hyderabad,} in fin No. 1 58/Hyd/2022 dated 1 B-OS-2O23.

¶18

Counsel for the Ap ellant: SRIB. NARSIMHA SHARM A, Le: rrred Senior Counsel representi g on behalf SRI KAILASH NATH P S S

¶19

Counsel for the Rer cr>ndent: SRI J.V. PRASAD, Leanred Sr:nior Standing C:ounsel

¶20

The Court deliverer tl-re following: JUDGMENT

¶21

I I

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY

¶23

AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. LAXMI NARAYANA

¶25

I.T.T.A. No.97 of 2023

¶26

I I

¶27

JUDGMENT:1per LIoi,ble Si Justice p.SAM KOSHY)

¶28

Heard Sri.B.Narsimha Sharma, lezuned Scnior Counsel representing on behalf Sri.Kailash Nat1- p S S, learned counsel for the apellant and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶29

This appea_l under Section 260A of the lncome .l.ax Act, 1961, has been preferred by the appellant against the order dt. 1g.05.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench A,, Hyderabad, in LT.A.No.158/Hyd/2022 for the Assessment year 2010_II.

¶30

The Assessing Officer while taking into account has disallowed the claim of the appellant, so far as the income from agriculture shown by the appellant. The said view of the Assessing Officer was affirmed by the CIT(A) so also by the ITAT. This Court having gone through the impugned orders passed by the Assessing Officer and also the orders passed in appeal both by the clr(A) as also by the ITAT, we are of the considered opinion that the authorities concerned have given proper justihcation arrd reasons for disa.llowing the claim of the appellant.

¶31

4 In view of the sarne, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involvcd in the instzLnt appeal and the grounds raised by the appellant in the present appeal are al.r questions of fact, which has been duly considered and answered by the Assessing Officer

¶32

¶33

5 AccorclLtlglr.^{LL:zqlpcalst:rnds reje cted'No tlrclc asi 1c)st''}

¶34

m iscellat'^{cor-t s petitions pcudinlfif arL' shali slilllcl} 6 Cottscclttt^rt "

¶35

closed

¶36

Sd/. I:. SRINIVASA^RAO .roll.lr^REGITRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The^lncomr:-1 x Appellate^{Tribunal' HyderabadBench' A Hyderabad'}

¶42

The^Cornmis o 1er of^{lncome Tax (Appeals)-11' tlyder;bitd'}

¶43

The^Deout'7( rrnmission€rr^{of lncome Tax Centra Circle} '-1'^H'Tderabad

¶44

tl KAILASH^{NATHP S S, Advocat: [OPIJ( ']}

¶45

1. One^{CC toS}

¶46

1l J.V. PRASAD^{Learned Senior S andin J (lounsel IOPUC]}

¶47

1. One^{CC to I}

¶48

Two^{CD C'cP:s}

kam

HIGH COUR'

DATED:08 rct 12023

a
<br>.t+^{
: s
.).
<br>Z
, i:-:ii i ,r - ..:/
i:::-=-::2

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

lTTA.No.97 o'2023

¶55

THE APPEAI- STANDS REJECTED

¶56

I
u:rs
--+ -
--a:,, /-r'\ -, -]/ rS L )D

Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Ph Jewels Vs State. of Telangana

M/s Hilton Constructions Builders and Developers Vs The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and 2 Others

K.Mohammed Akber Vs the Union of India

Mohsin Bin Mohamme Vs Union of India Ministry of Finance

Mayur Gopal Agarwal and another Vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and 2 others

M/s. Ph Jewels Vs The Union of India