In Itta/43/2004 Of B.mallamma v. The Income Taxx Officer, the High Court (2015) decided the matter.
Decision: In the circumstances, we dismiss this Writ Appeal answering the substantialquestion as raised in the memorandum of appeal in favour of the Revenue andagainst the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
I.T.T.A.No.43 of 2004
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Dilip B.Bhosale)
Learned counsel for the appellant assessee at the outset invited our attention tothe common order of this Court dated 18.11.2014 passed by the Division Benchin ITTA.Nos.310 of 2013 and batch in respect of the very same assessee andsubmits that the substantial question of law raised in the instant appealdeserves to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.Learned counsel for the assessee does not dispute the submission made onbehalf of the Revenue.
2. We have perused the judgment dated 18.11.2014 passed in ITTA.Nos.310 of2013 and batch. The assessee in those appeals and the assessee in the instantappeal is one and the same. Even the order impugned in the instant appeal andin those appeals passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is common.
3. In the circumstances, we dismiss this Writ Appeal answering the substantialquestion as raised in the memorandum of appeal in favour of the Revenue andagainst the assessee. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
Date: 31.03.2015
TJMR
______________________________
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
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.