Itta/494/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Sun Infra
High Court
30 Jul 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/494/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Sun Infra
Date of order
30 Jul 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/494/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Sun Infra, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Therefore, we dismiss the appeal without interfering with theimpugned judgment.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
I.T.T.A. NO.494 OF 2014
DATED:30.7.2014
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-IIII.T. TowersA.C. GuardsHyderabad … Appellant
And
M/s. Sun InfraaPlot No.6, Journalist ColonyRoad No.3, Banjara HillsHyderabad … Respondent
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
I.T.T.A. NO.494 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
The learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order,which is sought to be appealed against, has found that pre-conditionsfor initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, are not satisfied.
Therefore, we dismiss the appeal without interfering with theimpugned judgment. There will be no order as to costs.
________________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_______________________
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
30.7.2014
bnr
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.
EaseValue