Itta/51/2014 Of Potla Nageswara Rao v. The Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
19 Feb 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/51/2014 Of Potla Nageswara Rao v. The Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
19 Feb 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/51/2014 Of Potla Nageswara Rao v. The Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty tothe appellant to file a fresh one in accordance with law.
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, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.51 OF 2014
DATED:19.2.2014
Between:
Potla Nageswara Rao … Appellant
And
The Dy. Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle-4, Aayakar BhavanL.B. Stadium RoadHyderabad … Respondent
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. NO.51 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
Mr. K. Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, afterarguing the matter for some time, wants to withdraw the appeal as hesays that it is formally defective.
We permit the learned counsel to withdraw the appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty tothe appellant to file a fresh one in accordance with law. There will beno order as to costs.
________________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_______________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
19.2.2014
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.