Telangana High Court
ITTA/737/2014 of The Commissioner of Income tax (Central), Vs Sainath Estates p Ltd., on 31 December 2014
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 737 of 2014 DATE: 31.12.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Hyderabad. … Appellant And Sainath Estates (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Issues
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No. 737 of 2014
DATE: 31.12.2014
Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central),Hyderabad.
… Appellant
AndSainath Estates (P) Ltd.,Hyderabad.
… Respondent
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No. 737 of 2014
Judgment:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)
This appeal by the Revenue in relation to the assessment year2003-04 is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2009passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A,Hyderabad, in connection with the issue raised in the followingsuggested question of law.
“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe Tribunal is correct in law in directing the assessing officer tofollow return on investment method by applying the rate of 7% of theassessee’s investment in the property ignoring the provisions ofSection 23 of Income Tax Act amended with effect from 1.4.2002 ?”
Perusal of para-8 of the order passed by the Tribunaldemonstrates that the Tribunal merely confirmed the rate of 7% fordetermining the annual value. But, it was of the opinion that as theproperty in question was a heritage property and as it was burdenedwith various depressing factors, the said rate should not be applied toits market value but to the actual investment by the assessee for theacquisition thereof.
We find this reasoning to be perfectly valid and no question oflaw, much less a substantial question of law, is made out forinterference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
In consequence, pending miscellaneous petitions shall alsostand closed. No costs.
Date: 31stDecember, 2014pnb
_________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J