Case LawHigh Court › Itta/205/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/205/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Gootam

High Court 17 Sep 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/205/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Gootam
Date of order
17 Sep 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itta/205/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Gootam, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYAND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A No. 205 OF 2003 17-09-2014 BETWEEN Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry …Appellant And Jashua Gootam …..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A No. 205 OF 2003 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) This appeal is preferred against the order, dated 11-04-2002, passed by the Visakhapatnam Bench of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.995/Hyd/1995. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in all fairnessstated that the tax impact in this appeal is less than the limitstipulated under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1b961. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17-09-2014ks ___________________________L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J ____________________________CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
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