Case LawHigh Court › Itta/173/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/173/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kopparthi Surender Reddy

High Court 12 Mar 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/173/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kopparthi Surender Reddy
Date of order
12 Mar 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/173/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kopparthi Surender Reddy, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly, this appeal is summarily dismissed with costs,assessed at Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) payable by theRevenue to the Secretary, A.P.

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

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.173 of 2014 Date: 12-03-2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati. .....Appellant AND Kopparthi Surender Reddy . ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.173 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) We are of the view that this sort of appeal should not havebeen preferred because nothing has been decided by the learnedTribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is summarily dismissed with costs,assessed at Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) payable by theRevenue to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authoritywithin a period of two weeks from date. Costs are awarded because of the wastage of time of theCourt. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 12-03-2014 Gsn
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