Itta/115/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Hyderabad Race Club
High Court
26 Jun 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/115/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Hyderabad Race Club
Date of order
26 Jun 2013
Assessment year(s)
2007-2008
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/115/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Hyderabad Race Club, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently,the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
I.T.T.A. No.115 OF 2013
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-IIHyderabad.
..... Appellant
AND
Hyderabad Race Club,Malakpet, Hyderabad
.....Respondent
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be preferred in relation to theassessment year 2008-2009 in connection with ITA No.120/Hyd/2012.
It appears that the learned Tribunal has decided thematter relying on the judgment of the assessee’s own casein relation to the assessment year 2007-2008 in ITANo.1425/Hyd/2011 and nothing has been stated in theappeal papers that any appeal has been preferred againstthe aforesaid judgment of the learned Tribunal.
Under these circumstances, we are of the view that noillegality has been committed by the Tribunal. Consequently,the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
______________________
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.
June 26, 2013MAS
__________G.Rohini, J.
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.