Itta/209/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. Shri Ravinder Reddy And N. Laxman Rao
High Court
05 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/209/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. Shri Ravinder Reddy And N. Laxman Rao
Date of order
05 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
2002-2003
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/209/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii v. Shri Ravinder Reddy And N. Laxman Rao, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Under such circumstances, we dismiss this appeal. ________________ K.J.
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 Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
I.T.T.A.No.209 of 2013
DATED: 5.7.2013
Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad.
… AppellantAndShri Ravinder Reddy& Laxman Rao,Kothirampur, Karimnagar..
… Respondent
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
I.T.T.A.No.209 of2013
Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after goingthrough the impugned judgment and order, we are of the view that thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal does not call for anyinterference as the matter has been decided following the judgment ofthe Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 1710 and 1711/Hyd/2008, in the caseof Sri N. Laxman Rao, Karimnagar for the assessment year2002-2003 and 2003-2004.
There is no statement or averment in the appeal papers nor it isthe case of the Revenue that the above judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal in the case of N. Laxman Rao, Karimnagar has beenbrought under challenge or the same has been set aside. Therefore, theissue has been settled and accepted by the parties.
Under such circumstances, we dismiss this appeal.
________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_____________
G. ROHINI, J
pnb
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.