Itta/277/2005 Of M/S. Vst Industries Ltd v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad
High Court
07 Sep 2022 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/277/2005 Of M/S. Vst Industries Ltd v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad
Date of order
07 Sep 2022
Assessment year(s)
1999-2000
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/277/2005 Of M/S. Vst Industries Ltd v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad, the High Court (2022) 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 HYDERABAO
WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANt)THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO:277 OF 2005
Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act,1961 Against TheO1d91Of lncome Tax Appetlate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench - A Hyderabad inl.T.A.No. 1067 I Hydl 2022 dated 21-07-zoos for Assessment year 1999-2000preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax ( Appeals ) lV ,Hyderabad dated 25-10-2002 in Appeat No. 98 / AC -3 (3) / CtT (A) _iV I ZOOZ_OIpreferred against the order of the Asst. commissioner of lncome Tax, circle -3(3) , Hyderabad dated 28-03-2002 in PAN / GtR No. / V-33
Between:
M/S. VST INDUSTRIES LIMITED, rep. by its Director and Seoretary Sri NSaiSankar 1-7-1063/1065, Azamabad, Hydera6ad - 500 020.
...APPELLANT/ Appellant
AND
Asst. . Commissioner Of lnco_me T-ax, Hyderabad, Circle 3(3), Ayakar Bhavan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - S0O 001. ...neSp'OrubENriiesfonaent
...neSp'OrubENriiesfonaent
Counsel for the Appettant: SRI p. RAJENDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA
The Court delivered the following: Judgment
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAI-
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC E C.V
BHIIYANREDDY
I.T.T.A.No.277 of 2OOS
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hotble the Chief Justice llral Bhugan)
Heard Mr. P.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel lor theappellant.appellant.
2. Learned counsel lor the appellant submits that thetax amount due has already been paid by the appellant.Therefore, the appeal has become infructuous.
3. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissedASinfructuous.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shallstand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs..stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs..
SD/. B.S,CHIRANJEEVI,rRUE coPYtt 'o'*'.ltfTll.lsEcTtoN oFHCER
To,
2 1. rhe commissionei The lncome Tax Aooellate Tribjrnal, of tncome -Hyderabad Bench _ A Hyderabad3. The Asst. one The Asst. Asst. CC to Commissioner. sRt. p. r;;i'Apir;;i;lii , nyaeraoaonyaeraoao(3) , Hyderabad
tncome 4. 3. The Asst. one The Asst. Asst. CC to Commissioner. sRt. p. o_f lncome fbi, Ciici"'_g , nyaeraoaonyaeraoao(3) , Hyderabad
one The Asst. Asst. CC to Commissioner. sRt. p. The Asst. Asst. CC to Commissioner. sRt. p. Asst. CC to Commissioner. sRt. p. CC to Commissioner. sRt. p. to Commissioner. sRt. p. Commissioner. sRt. p. sRt. p. RAJENDER-RiDiji, ;il;;l'"i" 5. one CC to SRt. B. NARASIMAn one CC to SRt. B. NARASIMAn CC to SRt. B. NARASIMAn to SRt. B. NARASIMAn SRt. B. NARASIMAn B. NARASIMAn topuct5. one CC to SRt. B. NARASIMAn one CC to SRt. B. NARASIMAn CC to SRt. B. NARASIMAn to SRt. B. NARASIMAn SRt. B. NARASIMAn B. NARASIMAn topuct
RAJENDER-RiDiji, 5. one CC to SRt. B. NARASIMAn one CC to SRt. B. NARASIMAn CC to SRt. B. NARASIMAn to SRt. B. NARASIMAn SRt. B. NARASIMAn B. NARASIMAn sn-nrviA, topuct6. Two CD CopiesXjiJIr't" topuc:
HIGH COURT
DATED:0710912022
JUDGMENTITTA.No.277 of 2005
DISMISSING THE ITTAAS INFRUCTUOUS
t/tuli
'rr0,:'i
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.