Case Law › High Court › Itta/174/2013 Of M/S. Bathina Technologi...

Itta/174/2013 Of M/S. Bathina Technologies (India) Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii

High Court 03 Sep 2013 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · taphc

Parties

Date of order

03 Sep 2013

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/174/2013 Of M/S. Bathina Technologies (India) Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, the High Court (2013) 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

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A. No.174 OF 2013 DATED:3.9.2013 Between: M/s. Bathina Technologies (India) Ltd.,Hyderabad. … Appellant And The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II,Hyderabad and another. ….Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A. No.174 OF 2013 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) The learned Tribunal has appreciated the facts in great detail andrefused to condone the delay. The learned Tribunal was not satisfiedwith the cause shown by the appellant. The learned Tribunal has alsorecorded that there is suppression of material facts. We, therefore, do not find any reason to admit this appeal. Theappeal is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ____________ K.C. BHANU, J 3.9.2013 PNB

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.