Case LawHigh Court › Rc/84/1996 Of The Commissioner Of Income...

Rc/84/1996 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Hyd.race Club

High Court 22 Feb 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Rc/84/1996 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Hyd.race Club
Date of order
22 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Rc/84/1996 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Hyd.race Club, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Issue: 2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was correct in holding that the amountmentioned in question No.1 did not represent incometransferred without corresponding transfer of assets soas to be liable for the assessment by virtue of section60 of the Income-Tax Act ?case,...

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD MONDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE B. PRAKASH RAOAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO REFERRED CASE No. 8 4OF 1996 {under section 256 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 in RA.No. 237/Hyd/95, dated 27-6-1995Andhra Pradesh of ITAT Hyderabad Bench ‘A’} Between: The Commissioner of Income-taxAndhra Pradesh-II, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner V/s. Hyderabad Race Club,Hyderabad …. Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Sri S.R. Ashok Senior Counsel Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAOANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO REFERRED CASE No. 8 4of 1996 J U D G M E N T: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) RC.No. 84 of 1996 is referred to this Court by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad under section 256 (1) of theIndian Income Tax Act, 1961 in RA.No. 237/Hyd/95, dated 27-6-1995Andhra Pradesh of ITAT Hyderabad Bench ‘A’ on its file for decisionon the following questions of law viz., 1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was correct in law in holdingthat the amount of Rs.62,749/- was not liable tobe assessed, as income of the assessee for theassessment year 1987-88 ?case, the ITAT was correct in law in holdingthat the amount of Rs.62,749/- was not liable tobe assessed, as income of the assessee for theassessment year 1987-88 ? 2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was correct in holding that the amountmentioned in question No.1 did not represent incometransferred without corresponding transfer of assets soas to be liable for the assessment by virtue of section60 of the Income-Tax Act ?case, the ITAT was correct in holding that the amountmentioned in question No.1 did not represent incometransferred without corresponding transfer of assets soas to be liable for the assessment by virtue of section60 of the Income-Tax Act ? 3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT ought to have held that the expenditureon running and maintenance of race hourses was noteligible for set-off under section 74-A against theincome from same source in future years ?case, the ITAT ought to have held that the expenditureon running and maintenance of race hourses was noteligible for set-off under section 74-A against theincome from same source in future years ? 4)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was correct in law in holdingthat the income from leasing of horses asassessable under the head ‘Business’ ?case, the ITAT was correct in law in holdingthat the income from leasing of horses asassessable under the head ‘Business’ ? Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner andSri C. Kodandaram for the respondent. 2. It is submitted by the counsel appearing on both sidesacross the bar that all the above questions which were referred toabove are no longer res integra and they are squarely covered by theprinciples laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in RC.No.71of 1991, RC.No.111 of 1991 and RC.No. 27 of 1992, dated 14-2-2003, in favour of the assessee. Following the said decision, thequestions referred to are answered in favour of the assessee. 3. Accordingly, RC.No. 84 of 1996 is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ______________________________________ JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO22-02-2010.I s LTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO 3. Accordingly, RC.No. 84 of 1996 is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ______________________________________ JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO22-02-2010.I s LTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO REFERRED CASE No. 8 4 OF 1996 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered bythe Hon'ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Circulation Entry No. 128Date: 22-02-2010COMPUTER No. 43Court Master: I s L
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