Itta/737/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. Sainath Estates P Ltd
High Court
31 Dec 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/737/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. Sainath Estates P Ltd
Date of order
31 Dec 2014
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/737/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. Sainath Estates P Ltd, 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No. 737 of 2014
DATE: 31.12.2014
Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central),Hyderabad.
… Appellant
AndSainath Estates (P) Ltd.,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. 737 of 2014
Judgment:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)
This appeal by the Revenue in relation to the assessment year2003-04 is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2009passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A,Hyderabad, in connection with the issue raised in the followingsuggested question of law.
“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe Tribunal is correct in law in directing the assessing officer tofollow return on investment method by applying the rate of 7% of theassessee’s investment in the property ignoring the provisions ofSection 23 of Income Tax Act amended with effect from 1.4.2002 ?”
Perusal of para-8 of the order passed by the Tribunaldemonstrates that the Tribunal merely confirmed the rate of 7% fordetermining the annual value. But, it was of the opinion that as theproperty in question was a heritage property and as it was burdenedwith various depressing factors, the said rate should not be applied toits market value but to the actual investment by the assessee for theacquisition thereof.
We find this reasoning to be perfectly valid and no question oflaw, much less a substantial question of law, is made out forinterference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
In consequence, pending miscellaneous petitions shall alsostand closed. No costs.
Date: 31stDecember, 2014pnb
_________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_________________
SANJAY KUMAR, 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.