Case LawHigh Court › Itta/435/2010 Of Sri G.raghuram, Banjara...

Itta/435/2010 Of Sri G.raghuram, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ac Guards, Hyderabad

High Court 18 Mar 2021 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/435/2010 Of Sri G.raghuram, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ac Guards, Hyderabad
Date of order
18 Mar 2021
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/435/2010 Of Sri G.raghuram, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ac Guards, Hyderabad, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

HIGH COURTDATED:18/03/202'l JUDGMENTITTA.No.435 [of ][2010] ITTA DISMISSED [COSTS']@*+,,1.- [|] 1cttJJ:)0dADti20?-1'i.\+,)clj,L.C.J To HOn* OURABLE SRI [J l'l ] [E N'l'S'RA ][Nl ] AND HONOURAI]LE [SIi,I ] [USTICE'T.VI ] l.T.'l'.A. Ntt.135 [()F ][2010] .ll DG]IEN-I':[(Per ][Sri ][Jttstice ][Lt.S. ][llunt ][uchtndru ][llttttl] A memo has [been ][filed by ][the ][counsel ][tbr ][the ][appellant ][stating]that the appellant [wishes ][to ][withdraw ][this ][appeal ][in ][view ][ol ][an ][order]dated 30.01.2021 [in ][Form-3 ][passed ][by ][the Designated ][Authority ][under]the Direct Tax [Vivad ][Se ][Vishwas Act,2020'] 2.Inthatviewofthematter,thisappealisdismissedaswithdrawnwith liberty to approach [this ][court ][if ][there ][is no ][settlement ][under the ][said]Act. No costs. 3. Pending miscellaneous [petitions, ][if ][any, shall also ][stand]disrnissed Sd/.B.S,CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax AppeJlate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad.2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Apfeats)-Vl, 6-4 lT Towers, A.C.GuarOs,Hyderabad-500004. 3. The lnc^ome_Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), 6th floor, lT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad.4. One CC to Sri K.Vasanth Kumar. Advocate (OpUC)5. one cc to Ms. K.Mamatha chowdary, SC for rncorie Tax Department (opuc)6. Two CD CopiesKj \.}--- IN THE HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE [M.S'RAMACHANDRA ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR] l.T.T.A. NO:43s oF [2010] 'lncome Tax Tribunal [Appeal ][under ][section ][260-A ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ]againsttheorderofthelncomeTaxAppellateTribunal,H.yderabadBench-A.in ITA [No.6/H ][ydl2olo ][for ][Assessment ][Year ][2005-06 ][dated ][3010412010]Hyderabad 13/05/2010 [preferred against ][the ][order of ][the ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][(Appeals)-]Vl,HyderabadinAppealNo.o4lTl08.09/ClT(A)-Vl/2009-10dated14l1ol2oo9 Between: G.RAGHURAM, [Rep. ][by ][Smt. G.Prameela ][Devi ][(GPA)] ...APPELLANT AND tNCOIVE TAX [OFF|CER, Ward 6(3), ][6th ][Floor, ][lT ][Towers, AC Guards, ][Hyderabad]..,RESPONDENT For the Appellant [: SRI K.VASANTH KUMAR, ][Advocate]For the Respondent [: MS ][K'MAMATHA ][CHOWDARY' ][Advocate] The Court made the [following. ]
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan