Itta/286/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S.vbc Ferro Alloys Ltd
High Court
10 Feb 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/286/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S.vbc Ferro Alloys Ltd
Date of order
10 Feb 2025
Assessment year(s)
2004-2005
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/286/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S.vbc Ferro Alloys Ltd, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Therefore, the appeal [filed ][by ][the ][Department ][is ][dismissed ][in]terms of the aforesaid [Circular ][No.9 ][of ][2024 ][dated 17'09'2024']However, if the appeat [comes ][u'ithin ][the ][exception ][of ][Circular]No.5 of 2024, it [would ][be open ][to the Income ][Tax ][Depattment to]seek re...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 286 [2010]
lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260A of the [lncome ][Tax ][Act,196'1]against the Order dated 26.09.2008 [passed ]in [No.1106/Hyd/2008 ][for ][the]Assessment Year 2004-2005 on the file of [the ][lncome Tax Appellate ][Tribunal,]Hyderabad Bench ['B', ]Hyderabad [preferred ]against [the ][Order ][dated ][31-03-2008]passed in Appeal No.289/DCIT-C.3(3)/ClI(A)-lV/2006-07 on the file of [the]Commissioner of lncome Tax [(Appeals)-lV, ]Hyderabad [preferred against ][the ][Order]dated 26-09-2006 [passed ]in P.A [/G.l.R. ][No.AAACVT2SBAN-0041154i2004-05 ][on]the file of the Deputy Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax, Circle ]- [3(3), ][Hyderabad.]
Between:The Commissioner of lncome Tax-lll, IT [Towers, ][Masab ][Tank, ][Hyderabad.]
...Appellant
ANDMiS.VBC Ferro Alloys Ltd, 6-2-913/9'14, 3rd [Floor, Progressive ][Towers,]Khairtabad, Hyd.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. Sapna [Reddy ][representing]Sri J V Prasad, Sc for lncome [Tax]
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri [Challa Nagendra Prasad]The Court delivered the following: [Judgment]
.,r.**
'/
THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE TTONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA
ITTA No.286 OF 2010
JUDGMBNT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior Standing
Counsel representing Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Senior SitandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the appellant. perusedthe record.
2. This appeal undel Section 260,{ of the Income llax Act.I 961 , has been preferred by the Revenue as the r,Lppellantagainst the order dated,26.09.2008 passed by the Income TaxAppellate'fribunal, Hyderabad Bench,B', Hyderabad, inI.T.A.No.1 l,)6lHydl2008 for the Assessment year 2004-0: .3. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued Circular;No.9 of 202.4 dated 17.09.2024, amending the previous CircularINo.5 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024,by further enhancing the r:ronetarylimits for fibng appeals by the Income Tax Department bt:fore thelncome Tax Appeiiate Tribunais, High Courts anti Suprenre Court
tI
\
\
as a measure for [reducing ][litigation. ][ln ][paragraph ][2 ][of ][the ][said]Circuiar, we find that [the ][monetary ][timit ][frxed ][for filing ][an ][appeal]before the High Court [is ][Rs.2.00 ][crore.]
4. In the instant appeal, [tax ][effect ][is ][well ][below ][the ][monetary]limit.
5. Therefore, the appeal [filed ][by ][the ][Department ][is ][dismissed ][in]terms of the aforesaid [Circular ][No.9 ][of ][2024 ][dated 17'09'2024']However, if the appeat [comes ][u'ithin ][the ][exception ][of ][Circular]No.5 of 2024, it [would ][be open ][to the Income ][Tax ][Depattment to]seek revival ofthe [appeal. ][There shall ][be no ][order ][as ][to ][costs']
6. Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall]
stand closed.
Sd/- K. SRINIVASA T REGISTRARECTION OFFICER
//TRUE
To,
1.The lncome [Tax Appellate ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad ][pgncn ]['4" ][Hyderabad]2.The Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax ][(Appeals)-lV' ][Hyderabad]2The Deputy [Commissioner of ][tnto'" ][iax' ][Circle ][-.3(3)' ][Hyderabad]4.o"".l"iil'siil [v ][Prasad, ][Sc ][for ][lncome ][Tax ][[oPUC] ][.]il; aa [io ][sri ][cn"tt" ][Nagendra Prasad' Advocate ][ ]2.The Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax ][(Appeals)-lV' ][Hyderabad]2The Deputy [Commissioner of ][tnto'" ][iax' ][Circle ][-.3(3)' ][Hyderabad]4.o"".l"iil'siil [v ][Prasad, ][Sc ][for ][lncome ][Tax ][[oPUC] ][.]il; aa [io ][sri ][cn"tt" ][Nagendra Prasad' Advocate ][ ]6.Two CD CoPies
w
ADK/gh
HIGH COURT
DATED:1010212025
JUDGMENT
lTTA.No.286 of 2010
DISMISSING THE ITTAWITHOUT COSTS
6r\
To,
1.The lncome [Tax Appellate ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad ][pgncn ]['4" ][Hyderabad]2.The Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax ][(Appeals)-lV' ][Hyderabad]2The Deputy [Commissioner of ][tnto'" ][iax' ][Circle ][-.3(3)' ][Hyderabad]4.o"".l"iil'siil [v ][Prasad, ][Sc ][for ][lncome ][Tax ][[oPUC] ][.]il; aa [io ][sri ][cn"tt" ][Nagendra Prasad' Advocate ][ ]2.The Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax ][(Appeals)-lV' ][Hyderabad]2The Deputy [Commissioner of ][tnto'" ][iax' ][Circle ][-.3(3)' ][Hyderabad]4.o"".l"iil'siil [v ][Prasad, ][Sc ][for ][lncome ][Tax ][[oPUC] ][.]il; aa [io ][sri ][cn"tt" ][Nagendra Prasad' Advocate ][ ]6.Two CD CoPies
w
ADK/gh
HIGH COURT
DATED:1010212025
JUDGMENT
lTTA.No.286 of 2010
DISMISSING THE ITTAWITHOUT COSTS
6r\
Y'J[R][ 1][ til:. ] [Ir ][I][€]tz2 [1 ][|YIAR ][2025]t*iDS
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.