Itta/44/2014 Of D.s. Karunakar Reddy, Hyd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd
High Court
17 Dec 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/44/2014 Of D.s. Karunakar Reddy, Hyd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd
Date of order
17 Dec 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itta/44/2014 Of D.s. Karunakar Reddy, Hyd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
rN rHE [H|GH ][.ou*If3|o',J*=ot"t#E ][oF ]
THURSDAY ' ,THE [SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER]N,VOIHOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE [M'S'RAMACHANDRA ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SRIJiJ.TICE ][T.AMARNATH ]
lNcoMET [ NO:][ 44 ][0F][ 2][014]
(lncorne Tax [Tribunal ][Appeal under ][Section 260 ] [ofthe ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][1961' ][agatnst]Hyderabad [in]the order [of ][the ][Income ][Tax Appellate ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad Bench ][' ] " ITANo..T56lHYDl2oltlorAssessmentYear2006-07dated30-11-201lprefenedagainst the [Order ][of ][the ][Cornmissioner ][of ][Income ][Tax ][( ][Appeals ][) ][- ][I' ][Hyderabad' ][in]ITA No. [OgTglCC-6, ] [( ][A) ][- ] [/ ][09-10 dated ][23-02-2011 ][preferred ][against the]Order of the [Deputy ][Commissioner ][of ][Income ][Tax' ][Central ][Circle ][- ][6 ][' ][Hyderabad']PAN/GIR [No.AHCPC ][0573 ] [dated 3l-12-2009 ][)]
Between:Sri Lakshmi [Nilayam ][Apartments' ][Rajeev]D.S. KARUNAKAR [REDDY, ][Flat ][No ][302']Nagar, HYderabad.
,..APPELLANT
ANDDeputy Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax' ][Central ][Circle ][- ][6' ][Hyderabad']
...RESPONDENT
Counsel [for the Appellant: ] [A' ][V' ] Counsel [for the Respondent: ]"'''#au6ir'iii [B' ] ibUrlsrr- ron lNcoME rAx The Court [delivered the ][following: ][Judgment]
To
THE HONOURABLE [M'S'RAMACHANDRA ]
ANT)
THE HONOURABLE [T' AMARNATH ]
t.T.To.44 of[20t4]
JUDGMENT [: ][(Per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][M'S' ][Ramachandra Rao)]
Learned [counsel ][for ][appellant ][seeks ][to ][withdraw this ][Appeal to]initiate [proceedings under ][the ][Sabka ][Vishwas ][Scheme ][declared ][by ][the]Government [of lndia']
Granting [liberty to ][revive the Appeal in the ][event ][the ][appeilant]does not [get ][satisfactory resuh ][in ][the ][said ][Scheme' ][this ][appeal ][is]clismissed [as ][withdrawn' ][No ][costs']
As a sequel, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending' ][il ][any' shall ][stand]Iclosed.
sD/-K [G6rt?t?HsrElR]$e"'
//TRUE
SECTION
1. The [Incorne ][Tax Appellate ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad Bench ]t - I' [Hvderabad'][' ] ['' ][Hyderabad]The [[Commissioner ][ot ]][[ot ]]
2. The [[Commissioner ][ot ]][[ot ]]'"t"'"t'it-l'e'pltatt '"t"'"t'it-l'e'pltatt t,tr#,ffi{i#!#:w#tl#:qr[qi]-;i;lli'"Tl
HIGH COURT
MSRJ & TAJDATED:1711212020
ORDER|TTA.No.4A of 20'14
DISMISSING THE ITTA AS WITHDRAWN
WITHOUT COSTS
sN- t--1 n4 -\'' ,)? [aa\or ]\-'
1Hes14(<Jco2 3 JAl| ?U21:.f:
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.