Itta/341/2010 Of The Commissionmer Income Tax-Ii v. Kasila Farm Limited
High Court
09 Oct 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/341/2010 Of The Commissionmer Income Tax-Ii v. Kasila Farm Limited
Date of order
09 Oct 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/341/2010 Of The Commissionmer Income Tax-Ii v. Kasila Farm Limited, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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
IMONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 341 of 2010
lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, [1961]arising out of the order of the lncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad [Bench ][' ]B'Hyderabad, in LT.A.No.88/Hydl20o1, dated [17-05-2005, ]Assessment Year [1997-98]preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals-lll),Hyderabad, Appeal No.679/JCSR 2/ClT(A)lll/99-2000 dated:16-1 ['l-2000, ][preferred]against the Order of the Joint Commissioner of [lncome ][Tax ][(Assts) ][Special ][Range-2,]Hyderabad PAN/GlR No.K-81 dated 27-O1-2000-
Between:
The Commissioner of lncome Tax-ll, Hyderabad
...Appellant
AND
Kasila Farm Limited, [present ]FJo.1-8-439, Street No.3, [Lane ][No-'1, ][lndian ]AirlinesColony, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. RAMA KRISHNA [REDDY, SC ][FOR lT]DEPARTMENT
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G.V.N.
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LIIXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
I.T.T.A.No.341 of 2O lO
JUDGMENT: pcr I [oL l)!e Sn , rusrrr.e P. S.4lf KOS,ayJ
Heard Mr.A. Rama KnshnzL Redd-v, learned StandingCounsel for the income Tax Deparr,ment, for the appellant andMr.G"V.N- Harl, iearned counscl lor thc respondent.2. This apoeal under Section 260A of the income Tax Acr.i96 1, has been prcferred bv the Revenue as the appellantagainst the order dt. 17.05.2005 F,assed by the Income TaxAppellatc Tribunal, Hl,derabaci Eierrcl.r 'B', Hyderabad, inITA.No.B8/ Hydl2OOl for the Assessnrent Year 1997 -98.
3. Learned Senior Standing Corrn sel for the Income TaxDepartment, appearing on behalf ol the appellant, contendedthat the Cer-rtral Boarci of Direct Taxcs (CBDT) has issuedCircular No. 17 of 20i9 clt.O8.0 B.2O',9, amending the previousCircular No.3 of 2018 dt.11.07.2018, by further enhancing themonetary limits lor filing appeal by the lncome Tax Departmentbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tr'bunals, High Courts andSupreme Court as a m easure for reducing litigation. In
*--.;
paragraph 2 of the said Circular, the monetary iimit fixed forfiling an appeal before the High Court is Rs. l.OO crore.
4. In the instant appeal, the ta-x effect is well below themonetary limit.
5. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissedin terms of the aforesaid Circular No. i7 of 2019 dt.08.Oa.2ol9.However, if the appeal comes u,ithin the exception underparagraph 10 of Circular No.3 of 2018, it would be open to theappellant to seek revival of the appeal. No order as to costs.
6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,sha.ll stand closed.
SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR@
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The lncome{ax [Appellate ][Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ][' ] [' Hyderabad']
2. The Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax ][(Appeals-lll)' ][Hyderabad-]
3. The Joint Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][(Assts) ][Special Range-2, Hyderabad]4 One CC to SRI A RAMA [REDDY' ] [lT ] toPUCl4 One CC to SRI A RAMA [REDDY' ] [lT ] toPUCl
5. One CC to SRI [G.V.N. ][HARI, ][Advocate ]
6. Two CD Copies
kam
\
{'i
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:0911012023
JUDGMENTITTA.No.341 of 2010
THE APPEAL ISDISMISSED
\ \3\[lx]
I [ttF- S'rA]7bot':k,-):)0 3 l{ol, 2023it\r. 'r'\.. i. ..'\'. ._^.., -..L1
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.