Case LawHigh Court › Itta/247/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itta/247/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv v. M/S. Nagarjuna Agro-Tech Ltd

High Court 10 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/247/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv v. M/S. Nagarjuna Agro-Tech Ltd
Date of order
10 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itta/247/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv v. M/S. Nagarjuna Agro-Tech Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and orderof the learned Tribunal dated 25.11.2008 in relation to theassessment year 1994-1995, on the following suggestedquestion of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding thatd...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.247 OF 2012 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IVHyderabad. ..... Appellant AND M/s. Nagarjuna Agro-Tech Ltd.,Plot NO. 30, Nagarjuna Hills,Punjagutta, Hyderabad .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and orderof the learned Tribunal dated 25.11.2008 in relation to theassessment year 1994-1995, on the following suggestedquestion of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding thatdisallowance of outstanding sales tax liability was notpermissible while processing the return under Sec.143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act? We have heard the learned counsel for the appellantand gone through the impugned judgment and order. Thelearned Tribunal has followed the earlier majority decision ofthe Tribunal to hold that disallowance made by theAssessing Officer was not justified and accordinglydisallowance was deleted. We, therefore, do not see anyreason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Consequently, we dismissed the appeal. No order asto costs. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. July 10, 2013MAS __________G.Rohini, 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