Itta/338/2011 Of Ahura Holdings v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
11 Oct 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/338/2011 Of Ahura Holdings v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
11 Oct 2011
Assessment year(s)
2003-04, 2004-05, 2002-03
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/338/2011 Of Ahura Holdings v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEGODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEN. RAVI SHANKAR
ITTA No. 338 of 2011
Dated: 11-10-2011
Between
Ahura Holdings, Hyderabad
And
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle-2, Hyderabad.
…Appellant
…Respondent
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort ‘the Act’) is directed against the order of the ITAT, HyderabadBench ’A’ dated 26-11-2010 in ITA No. 362/Hyd/2010 pertaining to theAssessment Year 2003-04.
The appellant firm is engaged in the business of real estate. Asearch and seizure was conducted at the residential-cum-businesspremises of Sri Gopal Lal Badruka, partner of the assessee firm underSection 132 of the Act on 27-6-2006 and it was revealed that theassessee was actively engaged in developing a property at No. 205,Tarbund, Secunderabad Cantonment. The assessee eventually filedreturn for the Assessment Year 2003-04 admitting a loss ofRs.1,73,191/-. By the order of assessment dated 29-12-2008 the lossclaimed was disallowed for the reason that the registration of GPA inrespect of the development of property in question was entered into inApril, 2003 relating to the Assessment Year 2004-05 and not duringthe Assessment Year 2002-03 which was under consideration; and forthe further reason that the layout sanction was also obtained by SriGopal Lal Badruka as the GPA, for part of the land from theSecunderabad Cantonment only in April, 2003, beyond theAssessment Year in question. After an unsuccessful appellatecampaign, the appellant preferred a further appeal to the Tribunalwhich concurred with the findings of the Assessing and Appellateauthorities that the appellant commenced business only during theAssessment Year 2004-05 and therefore could not claim loss for theprevious assessment year.
No question of law let alone a substantial question of law arises
for consideration in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed at thestage of admission.
______________________
GODA RAGHURAM, J
11[th] October, 2011
GRR
______________________N. RAVI SHANKAR, 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.