Case LawHigh Court › Itta/586/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/586/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S.hallmark Constructions

High Court 04 Sep 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/586/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S.hallmark Constructions
Date of order
04 Sep 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itta/586/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S.hallmark Constructions, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A No.586 of 2014 DATE: 04.09.2014 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax – II,Hyderabad.… AppellantAndM/s.Hallmark Constructions,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.586 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(per Sri Sanjay Kumar,J) This appeal by the Revenue seeks to raise the followingsuggested question of law: “In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law inupholding the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) in deleting the addition made by theAssessing Officer basing on the entries recorded inthe loose sheet found during the survey proceedingsunder Section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961without appreciating that the Assessing Officer hasbrought enough corroborative evidence on record toprove that the Respondent-assessee has indulged intransactions outside the books of account?” Perusal of the order under appeal reflects that the issue wasdecided on a fact finding that the document in question was a dumbdocument and no additions could be made on that basis thereof. Weare not inclined to interfere with this fact finding by the lowerauthorities. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J
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