Case Law › High Court › Itta/25/2000 Of M/S Textle Trading Compa...

Itta/25/2000 Of M/S Textle Trading Company Patnershipfir v. Commissioiner Of Income Tax Ap Hyd

High Court 25 Jul 2012 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · taphc

Parties

Date of order

25 Jul 2012

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/25/2000 Of M/S Textle Trading Company Patnershipfir v. Commissioiner Of Income Tax Ap Hyd, the High Court (2012) 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

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A No. 25 OF 2000 DATED: 25-07-2012 Between: M/s. Textile Trading Company, Partnership Firm, rep., by Partner Mr.Devilal Rathi, S/o late Sri Kanhaiyalal Rathi, aged 57 years, Occ:Carrying on business in the premises No.21-7-696, Gandhi Bazar,Hyderabad … Appellant And The Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A No. 25 OF 2000 JUDGMENT:(per Sri Goda Raghuram, J) When this assessee’s appeal under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 pertaining to the year 2000 is called for hearing, there isno representation on behalf of the appellant though the name of Smt. C.Jayashree Sarathy is reflected in the cause list. Hence, this appeal isdismissed for default. GODA RAGHURAM, J 25-07-2012 M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J ks

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.