Itta/198/2008 Of M/S Charminar Bottling Company Private Limited v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
07 Jan 2025 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/198/2008 Of M/S Charminar Bottling Company Private Limited v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
07 Jan 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/198/2008 Of M/S Charminar Bottling Company Private Limited v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 JUDGMENTITTA.No.198 of 2008 APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION gs -ttrg [STAIS:]3 [1 ][iAli ]'u?5,TIC*t-^'''.,i'i,l(,-.:,:a;:.>
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 FOR THE STATE OF AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: [198 ] [2008]
Appeal filed under Section 260-4 of the [lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 against ][the]Order dated 28.07.2006 [passed ]in l.T.A.No. [979 & ][980/Hyd/2003, ][for ][Assessment]year 1997-98 & 98-99 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate [Tribunal, ][Bench-B,]Hyderabad prefened against the Order [dated ][21.O5.2OO3 ][passed ][in Appeal ][Nos.]0152& 0153/ClT ( )-2, VSP/2002-03 on the [file of ][the Commissioner ][of ][lncome Tax](Appeals) - 2, Visakhapatnam:: Camp at Hyderabad [preferred ][against ][the]Assessment Order dated 21.01.2003 [passed ][in ][PAN No.C-001 ][on ][the file ][of ][the]Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, [Central ][Circle ]-8('1), [Hyderabad-]Between:
M/S Charminar Boftling Company [Private ][Limited, ][105, ][2nd ][floor, ][E- Block, ][Surya]Towers, S.P.Road, Secunderabad [- ]500 [003.]
Rep. by Sri Y.Bhaskar Rao , G.M [Finance], [S/o ][Sri ][Y.Satyanarayana ][Rao. ][.--]
...APPellant
AND
The Asst. Commissioner of lncome [Tax, ][Circle ] [1], [Hyderabad]
...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri [Ramesh Babu ][(Not ][Present)]Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. [Murali ][Krishna ][Parvathaneni]The Court delivered the following:
\
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK
AND
THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE [J.SR-EENIVAS]RAO
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL [No. ][198 ][of ][2OO8]
JUDGMENT;[(Pe-r ]the Hon'ble [the ][Chief ][Justice ][Alok ][Arodhe)]
None for the appellant.
Mr. Murali Krishna Parvathaneni, learned [counsel ][for ][the]
respondent appeared through video conferencing.
2. Nonr: had appeared on behalf of the apoellalt [even]yesterday i.e., on 06.O1.2025
3. It appears the appellant is not [interested ][in]
prosecuting the appeal.
4. The appeai is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall [stand]
closed. There strall be no order as to QQ-sts.Sd,. [K. SRINIVASA RAO]JOINT /ITRUE 1' \I r'-. SECT lON OFFICER
To,t. The [lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal' Bench-B' ][Hyderabad]2 The [Commissione' ]inppeat")- [2' Visakhapatnam:]"ffi:";;iax t. The [lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal' Bench-B' ][Hyderabad]2 The [Commissione' ]inppeat")- [2' Visakhapatnam:]"ffi:";;iax
. ?frIxsx1l]lit3?-l0*l*ioner [or rncome ][rax' ][centrar ][circle ][-8(1)']HvderabadHvderabad
Hvderabad4.5"l"til" il; tl frnr. [irir ][trlurati ][Ramesh ][f ][itn.n" ][Babu' ][Parvathaneni' ][Advocate ][[oPUC]][Advocate ][toPUCI]6.Two CD [CoPies]5"l"til" il; tl frnr. [irir ][trlurati ][Ramesh ][f ][itn.n" ][Babu' ][Parvathaneni' ][Advocate ][[oPUC]][Advocate ][toPUCI]6.Two CD [CoPies]
4.
HIGH COURT
DATED:07/01/2025
JUDGMENTITTA.No.198 of 2008
APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
gs
-ttrg [STAIS:]3 [1 ][iAli ]'u?5,TIC*t-^'''.,i'i,l(,-.:,:a;:.>
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.