Case LawHigh Court › Itta/556/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/556/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Vista Pharmaceuticals Limited

High Court 16 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/556/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Vista Pharmaceuticals Limited
Date of order
16 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/556/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Vista Pharmaceuticals Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. _____________________ K.J.

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

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.556 OF 2012 Date: 16.07.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad. ….Appellant And Vista Pharmaceuticals Limited, Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No. 556 of 2012 ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) We have heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for theappellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal. It appears that the learned Tribunal on mixed question of fact andlaw found that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous to hold the same being prejudicial to the interest ofrevenue. In the circumstances, it is very clear that Section 263 of the IncomeTax Act was not complied with. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ Date: 16.07.2013KLP/ES ______________G. ROHINI, J
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