Case LawHigh Court › Itc/4/2003 Of Commissioneer Of Income-Ta...

Itc/4/2003 Of Commissioneer Of Income-Tax,Vijayawada v. M/S Usha Builders

High Court 13 Feb 2020 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · aphc
Parties
Itc/4/2003 Of Commissioneer Of Income-Tax,Vijayawada v. M/S Usha Builders
Date of order
13 Feb 2020
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itc/4/2003 Of Commissioneer Of Income-Tax,Vijayawada v. M/S Usha Builders, the High Court (2020) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO INCOME TAX CASE No.4 of 2003 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V. Sesha Sai) Learned standing counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for the petitioner would submit that in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019 of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBTD), all cases where the tax effect is below Rs.1,00,00,000/- are required to be withdrawn and as the value of the present case is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the case. Learned standing counsel would further submit that liberty may be granted in case it were to be found later that the subject matter of the case falls within the exceptions mentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018 issued by the CBTD to file an application for restoration of this case. The Income Tax Case is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforestated. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Income Tax Case, shall stand closed. __________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J _________________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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