Itta/220/2008 Of Sree Venkatesh Paper Agencies (Hyd) Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Income -Tax
High Court
25 Sep 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/220/2008 Of Sree Venkatesh Paper Agencies (Hyd) Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Income -Tax
Date of order
25 Sep 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/220/2008 Of Sree Venkatesh Paper Agencies (Hyd) Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Income -Tax, the High Court (2023) 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
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETry
INCOME TAX TRIBUN AL APPEAL No| 220 ot 2008
lncome Tax Tribunar Appear Under section 2604 of the rncome Tax Act,1961 arising out of the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, HyderabadBench 'A', Hyderabad in ITA No.91 7/Hyd/06, Assessment year: 2OOZ_03, dated 29_O2-2O08 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax , (Appeals)-lV, Hyderabad, Appeat No.0012/DC-3(2yC.t.T.(A)_tV/2006_07, dated:31_08-2006preferred against the order of the Deputy commissioner of rncome Tax, circre -3(2),Bench 'A', Hyderabad in ITA No.91 7/Hyd/06, Assessment year: 2OOZ_03, dated 29_O2-2O08 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax , (Appeals)-lV, Hyderabad, Appeat No.0012/DC-3(2yC.t.T.(A)_tV/2006_07, dated:31_08-2006preferred against the order of the Deputy commissioner of rncome Tax, circre -3(2),Hyderabad, PAN/GIR No. AADCS 2145e, dated 28_03_2006
Between:
Sree. V_enkatesh_Paper Agencie^s (Hyd) private Limited, Hyderabad. H.No.s_g-352/4, Raghava Ratna Towers, Cniia[ Ati fane, UvOeriUid.
...APPELLANT
AND
1 . Commissioner of lncome -Tax, Andhra pradesh _lll, Hyderabad2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad.2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for thd Appellant: SRt C. JAYASREE SARATHY (Not present)
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B. NARASIMHULUThe Court delivered the following: JUDGMENTThe Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
-l'llll IlOYIll,l.- Sltl .lt,S ll( I. I'.S.\\{ K()SIl\
A\I)
THE HOYIILE SIll ,rllSI ICIL l.AXr\ll NAIIAYA\ \ \l.tsllL, l1'\'I1"t'.\ \o. 220 of 2008I1"t'.\ \o. 220 of 2008
., t l) [(; ]I'I l \ l- /l'(r llou hlc.\rl .ltlttte P.SA.\I K0.9lIl't
\\'hcrr thc little r \\ as last rll(clt up lrtr hcarinu s,e har-: lrrljorrrntd the
lunLtcr alld rlire ct:d to be takcrr Lurcler thc captiou li r disn is;a1".
L l rrdlrr rlso whe n ttrc utatrcr is ttl(.n u1t hcaring. irrst ,irc oI' ref caLcdt:ills- thcre is rir rcprcscnlalron,lr lrchrtlloi lhe rltpr:llant :L rs roLLccil LlrzrLLllrre is ni) rcPI [jsa]nLltlion ]on hchull ollrP;t!-liiutt ()lr f IC\ ior i lilLrs.)l llaetinai.c - on 2 1 .08.1 )2i rLrd 1.1.0!).10,11.
I Irr vicu ol .he slrue- rr,c alc eortslr'lLint 1cr clisrtris; tite l,lncll rbr rilnl o1-llll): [aa ] [l i( ][)rl]llll): [aa ] [l i( ][)rl]
4. Accordinqlv. this Appcal is,lismisscd lor.non-;rosecutj,)n. \lo ordcr asto eos1s.to eos1s.
As a sequ:1. rriscellancous applicatioLrs pending if an_r,. :;hall stand
closccl
sd/. c [v. ][MALLrKTiltil[tHtxA]
//TRUE
SI:C't1ON
To,
1.The lncomrr [Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad ][Bt:nch'1''' ]["lyderabad]
2.The Comm [ssioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ]' [(AppealsllV' ][llyderz ][bed']3The Deput" [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax' ][Circle-3(2)' ][l-lyt ][erabad']3The Deput" [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax' ][Circle-3(2)' ][l-lyt ][erabad']
4One [to SRI ] [SARATHY' ][Advocate ][[OrLC]]
5One CC [to SRI ] [NARASIMHULU' ][Advocate [Ol']UCl]
6. Two [rpies]
krn, [k]
HIGH COLIRT
DATED:25109t2023
JUDGMEN'ITTA.No.22r) of 2008
THE APPET.L IS DISMISSEDFOR NON.PROSECUTION.
a\X"-gltolzz
.a - [--a ]=-:-"':'--./,€ o;/:.Y-\,j::i_)lL,? I ri i 2li1Iir_..':.-,.^:, [/'..]
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.