Itta/18/2001 Of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd v. The Dy.commi.of Income Tax Hyd
High Court
27 Jun 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/18/2001 Of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd v. The Dy.commi.of Income Tax Hyd
Date of order
27 Jun 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/18/2001 Of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd v. The Dy.commi.of Income Tax Hyd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
I.T.T.A. No.18 of 2001
DATE: 27.06.2013
Between:
M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited,Hyderabad.
… Appellant
And
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assts),Hyderabad.
… Respondent
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
I.T.T.A No.18 of 2001
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want topress this appeal. But, he requests this Court that a direction may be given tothe lower authorities for expeditious hearing of the matter, as the matter iskept pending for long time.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, we direct the lowerauthorities concerned to reconsider the matter in terms of the direction of thelearned Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months fromthe date of receipt of this order. No costs.
_____________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
______________
G. ROHINI, J
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.