Itta/241/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ii v. M/S. Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd
High Court
10 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/241/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ii v. M/S. Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
10 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
2002-2003
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/241/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Ii v. M/S. Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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 TENTH DAY OF JULYTWO 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.241 OF 2012
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-IIHyderabad.
..... Appellant
AND
M/s. Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd.,
Flat No. 601, Golden Green Apartments,Erramanzil, 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 filed against the judgmentand order of the learned Tribunal dated 30.7.2007 in relationto the assessment year 2002-2003, on the followingsuggested question of law:
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that theentire membership fee collected in the year underconsideration cannot be taxed in that year and has to bedeferred to future years?
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellantand gone through the impugned judgment and order. Thelearned Tribunal has decided the matter following earlierdecision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITANos. 1189 and 1190/Hyd/04 for the assessment years1997-1998 and 2001-2002. It is not the case of theRevenue that the orders passed earlier were appealed onthe same have been reversed. In view of the consistentfindings of the learned Tribunal, which are accepted by theparties, we do not see any reason to interfere with theimpugned judgment and order.
Consequently, we dismissed the appeal. No order asto costs.
July 10, 2013MAS
______________________Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.__________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.