Itta/397/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad v. Fibars Infratech Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad
High Court
04 Oct 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/397/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad v. Fibars Infratech Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad
Date of order
04 Oct 2021
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/397/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad v. Fibars Infratech Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad, the High Court (2021) 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
|.T.T.A.NO.397 0F 2015
lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 of the lncome Tax Act, againstthe order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ['B', ]Hyderabad inlTA.No.477lHyd12013, tor Assessment Year 2007-08 dated 03.01.2014 preferredagainst the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax [(Appeals)-ll ]Hyderabad [in]lTA.No.0739/ClT(A)-ll, Hyd/2011-12 dated 02.01 ,2013, [preferred ]against the Order ofthe lncome Tax Officer, Ward -'1 (2), Hyderabad PAN/GIR No. dated28.12.2011.the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ['B', ]Hyderabad inlTA.No.477lHyd12013, tor Assessment Year 2007-08 dated 03.01.2014 preferredagainst the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax [(Appeals)-ll ]Hyderabad [in]lTA.No.0739/ClT(A)-ll, Hyd/2011-12 dated 02.01 ,2013, [preferred ]against the Order ofthe lncome Tax Officer, Ward -'1 (2), Hyderabad PAN/GIR No. dated28.12.2011.
Between:
The Commissioner of lncome Tax [-1, ]Hyderabad
...APPELLANT
AND
Fibars lnfratech Pvt. Ltd., 16-2-83617l4lB, Rahmatkada Saidabad, Hyderabad
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. RADHA KRISHNACounsel for the Respondent: SRI N. VIJAYThe Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
I
\
To,
HON'ELE SRI [JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER ] ANDHON,BLE SRI [JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR]
ITTA.No .39'7 [of 2Ot5]
JUDGMENTI
Learned counsel [for ][the ][appellant ][filed letter ][dated]3O.Og.2O2l, [in ][the ][registry, ][seeking ][permission ][of ][this ][Court ][to]withdrarv thi.s [aPPeal.]
Pcrnr i [.rsion ][is ][accorded.]
the [appeal ][is ][dismissed ][as ][withdrawn ][' ][Interim]Accorrlingly, Order, if anl', [granterl earlier ][by ][this ][Court ][slands vacated' ][No]order as Lo cost s
r\s rtscquel thereto. [miscellaneous ][petitions, ][if ][anv,]
pendillg ir the appeal, shall stand [ciosed.]
SO/.K.SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER
. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ['B', ]Hyderabad.
1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-ll, Hyderabad..). The lncome Tax Officer, Ward -1 (2), Hyderabad.4. One CC to Sri A. Radha Krishna, Advocate 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-ll, Hyderabad..). The lncome Tax Officer, Ward -1 (2), Hyderabad.4. One CC to Sri A. Radha Krishna, Advocate 5. One CC to Sri N. Vijay, Advocate b. Two CD Copies7. One Spare Copy7. One Spare Copysbr\.4,+
DATED: 04t1\ti!.021
JUDGMENTlTTA.No.397 ot 2O1S
il'#lffi,Jf^1il_. [,-^]
/--''..,9)b
?'oo2fi [0[I]?W'. [!,1]\.. ",\_,
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.