Case Law › High Court › Itta/98/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Itta/98/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Deepak M.shah

High Court 21 Feb 2014 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · taphc

Parties

Date of order

21 Feb 2014

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itta/98/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Deepak M.shah, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also standclosed. ___________________ K.J.

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

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.98 of 2014 Date: 21.02.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV,Hyderabad .....Appellant AND Deepak M.Shah, Hyderabad . ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.98 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) It appears from the judgment and order of the learnedTribunal, the tax involvement is the matter of appeal. Therefore,going by the department notification, the appeal should not havebeen preferred. Moreover, the decision has been renderedbasically on fact. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also standclosed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ __________________ 21-2-2014 Gsn 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.