Case LawHigh Court › Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Ckr, J...

Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Ckr, J v. B. Venkatesam And Others[[1]]. We Have Perused The

High Court 07 Nov 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Ckr, J v. B. Venkatesam And Others[[1]]. We Have Perused The
Date of order
07 Nov 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Ckr, J v. B. Venkatesam And Others[[1]]. We Have Perused The, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: 3.Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed, confirmingthe impugned order.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAHAND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A. Nos. 20, 23, 25, 28, 29 and 30 OF 2001 Date: 07.11.2013 Between:Commissioner of Income-Tax, A.P.-I,Hyderabad ……Appellant And Sri B. Nagendar, 5-3-329, M.G. Road, Secunderabad. …Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S.R. AshokCounsel for the respondents : Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri CKR, J) These appeals are filed challenging the common order dated26.04.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench “B” (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA Nos.828 to831/H/93, 832 to 835/H/93, 836 to 839/Hyd/93, 840 to 843/Hyd/93. All these cases pertaining to four assesses relating to theassessment years 1985-1986, 1986-1987, 1987-1988 and 1988-1989. 2.It is submitted at the bar by the learned counselappearing for the appellant as well as the respondents that theseappeals are covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of thisCourt reported in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. B. VENKATESAM AND OTHERS[[1]]. We have perused the above judgment and find that the judgment, which has been citedis against the orders of the Tribunal in ITA No. 839/Hyd/93, dated26.04.1999. In the said judgment, the questions referred to wereanswered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and againstthe revenue. Respectfully following the said judgment in all theseappeals, we answer the questions in favour of the assesses andagainst the revenue. 3.Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed, confirmingthe impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shallstand dismissed. __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:07.11.2013.Ssv ________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAHANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A. Nos. 20, 23, 25, 28, 29 and 30 OF 2001 Date: 07.11.2013 SSV [1](2012) 349 ITR 0413
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