Itta/481/2013 Of M/S. National Academy Of Construction v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax ( Exemptions )- I
High Court
22 Oct 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/481/2013 Of M/S. National Academy Of Construction v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax ( Exemptions )- I
Date of order
22 Oct 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/481/2013 Of M/S. National Academy Of Construction v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax ( Exemptions )- I, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: As a sequel to the dismissal of this appeal, all theinterim applications shall also stand dismissed. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. _____________ K.C.
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 OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OFOCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
I.T.T.A. No.481 OF 2013
Between:
M/s. National Academy of Constructions,
NAC Campus, Kopndapur Post, Cyberabad,Hyderabad,
rep. by its Director General Sri Pradip Kumar Agarwal
..... Petitioner
AND
Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-I,Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad
.....Respondent
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta)
By the judgment and order which is impugnedherein, the learned Tribunal has refused to allow
rectification of error under Sec.254(2) of the Income TaxAct.
We have gone through the reasons and findingsrecorded by the learned Tribunal and we are inagreement with the grounds of rejection. It is stated thatthe jurisdiction under Sec. 254(2) of the Income Tax Actis limited to rectifying the error, which is patent, manifestand self-evident which does not require elaboratediscussion of evidence or arguments to establish thesame. The learned Tribunal did not find such mistake offact and accordingly dismissed the applications. We donot find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No orderas to cost. However, this order of dismissal does notforbid the appellant from taking up the point, which maybe urged in due course, in the appeal, to be broughtbefore this Bench.
As a sequel to the dismissal of this appeal, all theinterim applications shall also stand dismissed.
______________________
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.
_____________
K.C. Bhanu, 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.