Itta/156/2008 Of M/S.lanco Infratech Ltd v. The Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
02 Jan 2025 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/156/2008 Of M/S.lanco Infratech Ltd v. The Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
02 Jan 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/156/2008 Of M/S.lanco Infratech Ltd v. The Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
[ [34181]
]N THE HIGH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND
PRESENT
THE HON'B [ ALOK][ ARADHE]ANDTHE HO[N'BLE ] [J][USridE ][J. ] INCOME [LNo][: ][156 ][of ][2008]
lncome Tax Tribunal [Appeal ][Under Section ][2604 ][of ][the lncome ][Tax Act'1961]the [Order ][dated ][30-11-2007 ][passed ][in ] [No ][377lHydl2O07 ][for ][lhe]against Assessrnent [Year ][2003-2004 ][on the file ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal']Hyderabad [Bench ]['B', ][Hyderabad preferred ][against ][the ][Order ][dated ][12-01-2007]passedinlTANo.053/ACIT-16(1)rclT(A)-vl2oo6-oTonthefileoftheCommissionerof lncome [Tax ][(Appeals)-V, ][Hyderabad preferred ][against ][the ][Order]dated 31-03-2006 [passed ][in ][P.A ] [/ ] [R'No ] [- ][27 on the file of the ][Assistant]Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax, Circle ]- [16(1)' ][Hyderabad]
Between:
M/s.Lanco lnfratech [Ltd ], [14'1, ][Avenue ][8 ][Road-No ][^..Baniara Hills' ][Hyderabad']presenflv. ptot No.4, Sottware LjilGLt;ri. [iITEC ][City Madhapur, ][Hyderabad-]81 rep bi its [Sr. ][Vice ][Pres'rlent.]
...APPELLANT
AND
The Assistant [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax' Circle ][16(1)' Aayakar Bhavan']Basheer Bagh, [HYderabad.]
...RESPONDENT
l.A. NO:2 oF [2008(ITTAMP.][ NO: ][218 OF 2008)]
PetitionunderSection,l5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed [in ][support ][oilh" ][p"tiiion' ]16."^ l'^Sli*rt [may be pleased ][stay]the operation of [the ][Rssessm"eni ][Jrier ][uatea ][13-03 2006 ][passed ][by the Assistant]Commissioner [of ][lncome ][fax, ][Clrcte ][16 ][(1)' ][Hyderabad ][for ][the ][assessment year]2oo3-2oo4as confirmed [ovinliinii" ][lrA ][No 377lHvd/2007 dated 3o-11-2oo7']
Counsel for the Appellant: irlr. Deepak Chowdary
9*l:_"] [for the Respondent: ][Mr. J.V. ][prasad, Senior ]Standing Counset FORINCOME TAX
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
TIIE HON'BLE TIM CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADIMANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
I.T.T.A. No. 156 of 2008
JIIDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Atok Aradhe)
Mr. Deepak Chowdary, learned counsel appears for the
appellant.
Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel forIncome-tax appea$ for the respondent/Revenue.
2. lrarned counsel for the appellant submits rhat the cause
in the appeal does not survive for consideration.
3. [n view of aforesaid submission, the appeat is dismissedas infiuctuous.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shafl stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
sdf-[A.v.s.s.][C.S.M. SARMA]GISTRAR }T
GISTRAR,ITRUE [COPY"]
To,1The lncome [Tax Appellate ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad Bench ]['8" ][Hyderabad]
12The Commissioner [of lncome Tax ][(Appeals)-V' ][Hyderabad]3The Assistant [Commissioner ][of lncome ][Tax' ][Circle ][- ][16(1)' ][Aayakar ][Bhavan']Basheerbagh, [HYderabad']
,/ /
4. One CC to tv! r Deepak Chowdary, Advocate tOpUCl
5 one cc to Mr J.V. prasad, sENroR .TANDTNG couNSEL FoR rNcoMETAX IOPUCITAX IOPUCI
6 Two CD Copies
kam/gh
F!-
-1I
HIGH COURT
DATED:2/0112025
JUDGMENT
ITTA.No.156 of 2008
THE APPEAL ISDISMISSED ASINFRUCTUOUS
.da€H-_fi({a5
{
1HE r€(o(r\I\|Iacailil ffibI.)2{ )c j*t4*+€,C:
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.