Itta/169/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. State Bank Of Hyderabad
High Court
12 Mar 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/169/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. State Bank Of Hyderabad
Date of order
12 Mar 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/169/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. State Bank Of Hyderabad, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.No.169 of 2014
Date: 12-03-2014
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-III,Hyderabad
.....Appellant
AND
State Bank of Hyderabad, Finance andAccounts Department, Hyderabad
...Respondent
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.No.169 of 2014
JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta )
We have heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Counsel forthe appellant, and have gone through the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal.
It appears that the learned Tribunal has decided the matterholding that exercise of power under Section 263 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 was not called for since the subject issue being adebatable one. This principle is very well settled and the wellsettled principle has been followed by the learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as tocosts.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed.
___________________
K.J.
SENGUPTA, CJ
__________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
12-03-2014 Gsn
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.