Rc/2/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. K. Visweswara Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMARANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIKRC NO: 2OF 2004 Between: Commissioner of lncome Tax, A.P. ll, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1. K. Visweswara Reddy, Hyderabad 2. K. Sujatha Devi, Hyderabad. 3. K. Anita Reddy, Hyderabad. 4. K. Jayalatha, Hyderabad. ..,RESPONDENTS Case referred to the High Court by the lncome -Tax Appellate TribunalHyderabad Bench ["A" ]Hyderabad, under Section 256 (1) ofthe lndian lncome TaxAct, 1 961 in R. A. Nos. 367 I Hydl 1986 ( in ITA No. 1055 / Hyd/ 1984 ) ; R.A. No.368 / Hyd/ 1986 (in l.T.A. No. 1056 / Hyd/ 1984 ); R.A.No.370 / Hyd / 1986 (inl.T.A.No. 1058 / Hyd / 1984); R.A. No.371 lHydl 1986 ( in ITA No. 1059 / Hyd/'1984) Assessment Year, 1981 -82, on its file for,decision on the following questionof law viz.,Hyderabad Bench ["A" ]Hyderabad, under Section 256 (1) ofthe lndian lncome TaxAct, 1 961 in R. A. Nos. 367 I Hydl 1986 ( in ITA No. 1055 / Hyd/ 1984 ) ; R.A. No.368 / Hyd/ 1986 (in l.T.A. No. 1056 / Hyd/ 1984 ); R.A.No.370 / Hyd / 1986 (inl.T.A.No. 1058 / Hyd / 1984); R.A. No.371 lHydl 1986 ( in ITA No. 1059 / Hyd/'1984) Assessment Year, 1981 -82, on its file for,decision on the following questionof law viz., " (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lncome TaxAppellate Tribunal ought to have held that , alternatively, the gains on the sale oflands are liable to capital gains tax under Section 45?lands are liable to capital gains tax under Section 45? I I (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lncome TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holdinq that the inclusion of agricultural lands withinthe definition of a car:ital asset in section 2 (14) of the l.T. Act does not bring acharge for levy of tax u/s. 45 of the LT.Act ?'.Appellate Tribunal was right in holdinq that the inclusion of agricultural lands withinthe definition of a car:ital asset in section 2 (14) of the l.T. Act does not bring acharge for levy of tax u/s. 45 of the LT.Act ?'. The reference coning on for hearing upon perusing the letter of reference of thelncome-Tax-Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ["A" ]Hyderabad dated 31-12-2003 and records in rhe case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. J.V. Prasad,Senior Counsel for lncome Tax Department appearing on behalf of the applicant The Court delivered the followinq order THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK RC. No. 2 ot 2OO4 ORDER:1per ttort'ble Si Justice T.Vinod Kunrur) Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Taxappearing on behalf of the applicant submits that since the tax effect in theappeal is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Circular No.3 of 2018,dt.11.07.2018 as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019, dt.08.08.2019, there isno need for this Court to answer the present reference made by the Tribunalas the same would be purely academic. 2. In view ofthe same, this RC is closed. No order as to costs3. Consequently, miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed in the light of this {ina-l order.3. Consequently, miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed in the light of this {ina-l order. SdIB.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT R,EGISTRAR\$sSECTIbN OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, I. The Regiitrar, [Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ][Hyderabad Bench ]["A" ][Hyderabad]2. One CC to Sri J.V. [Prasad, ][Senior ][Standing ][Counsel ][for ][lncome ][tax]Department [(OPUC)]2. One CC to Sri J.V. [Prasad, ][Senior ][Standing ][Counsel ][for ][lncome ][tax]Department [(OPUC)]3. Two CD Copies.J HIGH COURTDATED:2311112022-(HE 'tI\Ja-o O2g t[N.:. ,:/\.)/ORDERlj,i :1. t,ia',RC.No.2 of 201)4CLOSING THE R[FERRED CASE:. WITHOUT COSTS5It(.vIT\. I