Case LawHigh Court › Itta/559/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/559/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji Biotech Park Private Limited

High Court 05 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/559/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji Biotech Park Private Limited
Date of order
05 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/559/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji Biotech Park Private Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed. __________________ K.J.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.559 of 2011 DATED: 5.7.2013 Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Biotech Park Pvt. Ltd.,Secunderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND I.T.T.A.No.559 OF 2011 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and havinggone through impugned judgment and order, we are of the view thatthis appeal is not liable to be admitted on any ground. The assessee has been carrying on business of development ofland and as such, it entered into a memorandum of understanding withthe Government of Andhra Pradesh and as per the terms of the saledeed executed by it with the buyers to whom the assessee had soldthe plots in question during the previous year under consideration, theassessee was obliged not only to carry on various developmentalworks within the sold plots but also to provide various facilities beforegiving possession of those plots. Therefore, these plots are stock-in-trade and the same were sold in the course of business and so, theincome derived from such sale cannot be said to be a capital gainrather it is a business income. The learned Tribunal has correctly decided the matter. We,therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugnedjudgment and order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _____________ G. ROHINI, J 05.07.2013 pnb
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan