Itta/46/2009 Of Shri Prabhudayal Agarwal v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10 [1], Hyderabad
High Court
28 Nov 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/46/2009 Of Shri Prabhudayal Agarwal v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10 [1], Hyderabad
Date of order
28 Nov 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/46/2009 Of Shri Prabhudayal Agarwal v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10 [1], Hyderabad, the High Court (2024) 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
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
ANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 46 0F 2009
lncome tax Tribunar Appear under section 260_4 of the rrrcome tax Act, 1961,against the order of the rncome Tax Appelate Tribunar, B-Bench, Hyderabad Misc,Appln No 2l to 24 rHydrog ( in rrA No. 562 to 565 / Hydi 03 respectivery)(Assessment years 1988 -89 to 1991 -g2 ) and Misc. Apprn. No,25 to 28 /Hydt 09in lrA No. 504 to 507 /Hydro3 respectivery ) ( Assessment years 1988-Bg to 1991-92) dated 24-04-2009 preferred agarnst the order of the commissioner of IncomeTax (Appears), Guntur. cAMp at Hyderabad in Appear Nos. 0059/Tr./crr (Ay cNT12002-03'0058 trr ic rr(A)G NT/2002-03, 0057/Tr./(c rr(A)c NT/2002-03 0055/Tr./c rr(A)/GNT/2002-03, dated 30-12-2002Between:
Shri Prabhudayal Agarwal, Secunderabad
...APPELLANT
AND
The lncome Tax Officer, Ward -10 (1) , Hyderabad
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. y. Koteswara Rao RepresentingSRl. Y. Ratnakar
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B. Narasimha Sarma
The Court made the following ORDER:
THE HON'BLE T
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI [J.][s]
INCOME [ No.46 ][of ][2OO9]
JUDGMENT:[(Per ][the ][Hon'bte the ][Chief ][Justice Alok Aradhe)]
Mr. Y.Koteswara [Rao, ][learned ][counsel ][representing]Mr. Y.Ratnakar, [learned ][counsel ][for the appellant']
2. Leanred counsel [for ][the ][appellant submits ][that ][the]
issue involved in [this ][appeal ][does ][not ][survive ][for ][consideration]on account of efflux [of ][time.]
3. The aforesaid [submission is taken ][on ][record']
4. Accordingly, [the ][appeal ][is dismissed ][as ][infrtLctuous']Miscella:reous applications [pending, ][if ][any, shall ][stand]
clo sedHowever, there shall [be ][no ][order ][as ][to ][cosls-]Sd/-K. SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//sEcfloNbFFrcER /
To
1.The lncome Tax Appellate [Tribunal, ] [Bench, ][Hyderabad]\2.The Commrssioner of [lncome Tax (Appeals), Guntur ][. ][CAMP at Hyderabad],The lncome Tax Officer, Ward [.10 ][(1), ][Hyderabad.]4.One CC to SRl. Y [RATNAKAR, Advocate ] 5One CC to SRl. B NARASIIMHA [SARMA, ][Advocate ] rr.Two CD Copies,The lncome Tax Officer, Ward [.10 ][(1), ][Hyderabad.]4.One CC to SRl. Y [RATNAKAR, Advocate ] 5One CC to SRl. B NARASIIMHA [SARMA, ][Advocate ] rr.Two CD Copies
kul/DL
i
HIGH COURTDATED:2811112024
ORDERHa ST,qii1.,\o[s]lTTA.No.46 of 2009a.2 B 0E[ 2il24Z.air*Ia,'fspE.,-IC\ \,:C
DISMISSING I'HI] APPEAL ASINFRUCI't]OUS WITIIOUT COSTS
01 >\:>t
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.