Case LawHigh Court › Itta/46/2001 Of Comm Of Incometax Vijaya...

Itta/46/2001 Of Comm Of Incometax Vijayawada v. M/S Sri Ramachandra Transports

High Court 15 Dec 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/46/2001 Of Comm Of Incometax Vijayawada v. M/S Sri Ramachandra Transports
Date of order
15 Dec 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/46/2001 Of Comm Of Incometax Vijayawada v. M/S Sri Ramachandra Transports, the High Court (2017) 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

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN I.T.T.A.No.46 of 2001 JUDGMENT: Sri J.V. Prasad, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income-tax, states that the tax dispute, involved in the present appeal, is only Rs.1,80,000/- which is far below the minimum limit stipulated in the CBDT circular of Rs.20,00,000/- to prefer appeal; and, therefore, the Appeal may itself be dismissed on this short ground. This matter was referred to a third Judge in view of the difference in opinion between Justice S.R.Nayak and Justice S. Ananda Reddy. In the light of the submission of Sri J.V.Prasad, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income-tax, it is wholly unnecessary to express any view on the merits of the case. The Appeal is dismissed on the short ground that the CBDT circular stipulates that the Department would not, except in certain circumstances, press for a hearing on the merits of Appeals where the disputed amount of tax is below the monetary limit of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ. Date:15.12.2017. cs
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