The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, vs. Vinod Ojha

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/92/2026HC TelanganaHBHC01031037202623 June 2026Author: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT's order was passed in November 2025, which was significantly before the amendment bill to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was placed before Parliament. Furthermore, at the time the ITAT decided the matter, there were numerous High Court judgments governing the issue and establishing the applicable legal position. Consequently, the court found that the ITAT's finding could not be considered contrary to the law as it existed then, nor contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the High Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal was rejected.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, specifically the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Hyderabad, has filed an appeal before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The appeal challenges an order dated November 28, 2025, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench 'B', in ITA No. 1231/Hyd/2024. This order pertains to the assessment year 2016-2017. The ITAT's decision was made prior to the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2026, which introduced a proviso to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court reviewed the record and heard the counsel for the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have considered the amendment brought to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2026, when passing its order. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any contentions from the assessee, Vinod Ojha. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT ought to have considered the amendment to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, brought about by the Finance Act, 2026. The Revenue contended that this amendment was relevant to the decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
13447 | IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO:92 OF 2026 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 28.11.2025 passed in ITA No.1231/Hydl2o24 for the Assessment Year 2O16-2017 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad. Between: The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-4, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND Vinod Ojha, 5-1 -1 54 Poosal Basti, Jambagh Hyderabad Telangana-5000'1 2. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. Kamasani Sudhakar Reddy (Sr Sc For lncome Tax) Counsel for the Respondents: ---

The Court made the following: ORDER I ( !i

i i.,, , I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NA.NDIKONDA ITTA No.92 of 2026 23.06.2026 Between: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND Vinod Ojha, 5-1-154 Poosal Basti, Jambagh, Hyderabad, Telangana. .Respondent JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Jttstice P.Sam Kosfu) Heard Mr.Kamasani Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Departmt:nt, for the appellant and perused the record. The present is the appeal which has been preferred by the Revenue assailing the order passed by the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad-'B' Bench, Hyrlerabad, 1n ITA.No. 1 23 1 /Hy dl 2024, lor the assessment year 20 | 6 -20 17 . 2 I

2

3.

The substantial grounds raised for challenge in the present appeal are primarily on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have considered the amendment brought to the lncome Tax Act, 1961, under the proviso to Section l47A vide the Finance Act,2O26. At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order in instant case itself one which was passed in November, 2025, that is much, before the Amendment bill was placed before the Parliament. Further, on the date, when the Tribunal had decided the matter, there were I00s of matters of the jurisdictional High Court governing the issue and laying down the applicable legal position.

4.

In view of the same, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be either held to be contrary to law as it then existed nor can it be said to be contrary to the evidence on record.

5.

In view ofthe same, we do not find any substantial question of law for consideration in the present appeal.

6.

Therefore, the Appeal stands rejecred. There shall be no , I order as to costs I

3 Miscellaneous closed. applications pending, if any, shall stand //// MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 'l . The lncome Tax A 2. One CC to SRl. Advocate [OPUC]

3.

Two CD Copies W ppellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', lyderabad. 'kamasani Sudhakar Reddy, (Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX) Pr/KA

J . r HE 5 ia . z c\)' /,/-+ 13 o5 lLrE 2o ,t a '*r+ ... t ^.- \-\ --.-rt.' HIGH COURT DATED: 2310612026 ORDER ITTA.No.92 of 2026 REJECTING THE ITTA F ,'€ i6 r-i-! 6) .Y * ":, 1 1t, 7 l'1 o\

More judgments on Section 147A

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →