Itta/309/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Hyderabad v. State Bank Of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad
High Court
04 Jan 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/309/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Hyderabad v. State Bank Of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad
Date of order
04 Jan 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/309/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Hyderabad v. State Bank Of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Therefore, the appeal [filed ][by ][the ][revenue ][is ][dismissed in]tefms of the aforesaid [Circular ][No.17 ][of ][201,9, ][dated ][08'08'2019']if the [appeal ][comes ][within ][the ][exceptiofl ][under]However, paragraph [10 ][of ][circular No.3 ][of ][2018, ][it ][would ][be open ][to ][the]Inc...
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 AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWO THOUSAND AND
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF ANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE [N.TUKARAMJI]
I.T.T.A. NO: 309 OF 2006
Appeal Under Section [260A ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][against ][the]order dated 07-04-2005 [in ][ITA No. 16/H/99 ][0n ][the ][file ][of ][the ][lncome ][tax]Appellate Tribunal, [Hyderabad ][Bench ]-8, [Hyderabad ][preferred against ][the]order of the Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][(Appeal ]) -l , [Hyderabad ][dated ][12']05-1999 in Appeal [No. 2/ Tr/SR-3 ][/ ][CIT (A) ]- [l/98-99 ][preferred against the order]of the Deputy [Commissioner ][of ][lncome Tax (Assts) ][, ][Special Range ][-3,]Hyderabad dated 17-1'l'1997 [in ][PAN / GIR No. S-74]
Between:
The Commissioner of [lncome ][Tax-lll, ][Hyderabad.]
AND
State Bank Of Hyderabad , [Gunfoundry, ][Hyderabad.]
...APPELLANT
...RESPONDENT
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under order Vl Rule [17 Read ][with ][section ][151 ][of ][cPC ][praying ][that]in the circumstances stated [in ][the affidavit ][filed ][in ][support of the ][petition, ][the ][High]court may be [pleased permit ][the ][petitioner ][to substitute its ][name ][as ][respondent ][in]the appeil as ["State ]Bank of [lndia ][Gunfoundry Hyderabad" ][by ][amending ][the]cause title accordingly [in ][the ][interest of ][justice]
Counsel for the [Appellant:SRl. ][J.V. ][PRASAD SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPT']
Counsel for the [Respondent: ]
The Court made [the ][following: ]
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHI.IYAN
ANP
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
I.T.T.A.No.309 of 2006
JUDGMENT: @er [the ][Hon'ble ][the ][Chief ]Jutiw Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. J.v.Prasad, learned Standing counsel for Income'fax Department appearing for the appellant andMr. IQrthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for therespondent.
2. This appeal under Section 260A o[ the Income TaxAct, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter), has been preferred by therevenue as the appellant against the order dated 07.04.2005 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B'Flyderabad (fribunal), in I.T.A.No.16/Hyd/1999 for theassessment year 1996-97.
3. Mr. J.v.Prasad, learned Standing counsel fakly submits thattax effect in this appeal is below rhe mon etary limit for filingappeal
\
4. Centrai Board o[ Direct Taxes (CBDT) has [issued" ]CircularNo.17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, [amending ][the previous ][Circular]No.3 of 201.8, dated [11.07.2018, ][by ][further ][enhancing the monetary]limits for filing appeals by [the Income ][Tax ][Department before ][the]Income Tax Appellate [Tribunals, ][High ][Courts and ][Supreme ][Court]as a measure for [reducing ][litigation. ][In ][paragtaph ][2 ][of ][the ][said]circular we find that [the ][monetary ][limit ][fixed ][for ][filing an ][appeal]before the High Court [is Rs.1.00 crore.]
5. Therefore, the appeal [filed ][by ][the ][revenue ][is ][dismissed in]tefms of the aforesaid [Circular ][No.17 ][of ][201,9, ][dated ][08'08'2019']if the [appeal ][comes ][within ][the ][exceptiofl ][under]However, paragraph [10 ][of ][circular No.3 ][of ][2018, ][it ][would ][be open ][to ][the]IncomeTaxDepartmenttoseekrevivaloftheappeal.
Miscellaneousapplicationspend"ing'rfany'shallstandclosed'However,[there ][shall ][be ][no order ][as ][to ][costs']
'.,-ia?*fH'56,t*'*ilJ(YtSEGTIdN
,,TRUE
To,Bench -8, [HYderabad]Tribunal, [HYderabad]HYderabad1. [The][ lncome ][tax ][APPellate]e Tax [(APPeal ) ][-l ][']2. [The ][Comm][issioner of lncom]lncome [Tax (Assts][) ][, ][SPecial ][Range'3 ][']Commissioner [of][[DePutY]]
3.The [[DePutY]]HYderabaoHYderabao4One [to]
AD [Advocate IOPUC]]SRI. [J.V. ] Advocate [ PUTTAMREDDY
SR\. [KARTH\K ][RA\AANA]
5. [One ] [to]
6. [Two ] [Copies]"$"-"$"-
Miscellaneousapplicationspend"ing'rfany'shallstandclosed'However,[there ][shall ][be ][no order ][as ][to ][costs']
'.,-ia?*fH'56,t*'*ilJ(YtSEGTIdN
,,TRUE
To,Bench -8, [HYderabad]Tribunal, [HYderabad]HYderabad1. [The][ lncome ][tax ][APPellate]e Tax [(APPeal ) ][-l ][']2. [The ][Comm][issioner of lncom]lncome [Tax (Assts][) ][, ][SPecial ][Range'3 ][']Commissioner [of][[DePutY]]
3.The [[DePutY]]HYderabaoHYderabao4One [to]
AD [Advocate IOPUC]]SRI. [J.V. ] Advocate [ PUTTAMREDDY
SR\. [KARTH\K ][RA\AANA]
5. [One ] [to]
6. [Two ] [Copies]"$"-"$"-
HIGH COURTHCJ & NTRJDATED :04101120231routQ,;lrLLLt-[s]ii!lcEs\y*3140.JUDGMENTITTA.No.309 of 2006DISMISSING THE ITTAWTTHOUT COSTSi!,1r$>3)3\r
/{
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.