Case LawHigh Court › Itta/558/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/558/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. M/S Jagadamba Pearls Dealers

High Court 06 Jan 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/558/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. M/S Jagadamba Pearls Dealers
Date of order
06 Jan 2025
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/558/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. M/S Jagadamba Pearls Dealers, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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 M9I?TY. THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVi PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHlEF JUSTIC E ALOK ARADHEANDTHE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE J. SREENlVAS RAo INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 558 ot 2013 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act1961 against the order dated 17-06-20'13 0n the fire of the rncome Tax ApperateTribunal, Hyderabad Bench ,A,, Hyderabad in l.T.A.No.91 lHydl2l12 forAssessment Year 2oo}'2oog preferred against the order dated 30-12-20.r 1 on thefile of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)_Vll, Hyderabad inl'T'A'No 1244rDcrr cc-4icrr(A)-Vr2o1o-11 preferred against the order dated31-12-2010 passed in pAN / crR No. on the fire of the DeputyCommissioner of lncome_Tax, Central Circle _ 4, Hyderabad. Between: Commissioner of lncome Tax_V, lT Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad ...Appellant AND M/s Jagadamba pearls Dealers, 7_2_155, pot Market, Secunderabad ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Ms._B. S-apna Reddy, Standing Counselrepresenting Mr. J.V.prasad, Standing Coun""i foiln"ori" f* O"partmentrepresenting Mr. J.V.prasad, Standing Coun""i foiln"ori" f* O"partmentCounsel for the Respondent: Sri A.V. Raghu RamThe Court delivered the following: JUDGMENTThe Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF [J] [ARA.DHE] AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE[J.SREENIVAS ] INCOME TAX TRI [No.558 ][of ][2O13] JUDGMENT:(l'er the lloi'ble the Chrcf Justrce Alok [Arodhe)] Ms. B,Sapna Reddy, learned [Junior ][Standing]Counsel representing Mr. [J.V.Prasad, ][learned ][Senior]Standing Co,rnsel [for ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][frrr ][the]appellant 2. Learned counsel for the appellant [seeks ][leave ][of this]Court to wittLclraw the [appeal ][in ][the ][light ][of ][the ][Crrcular]No.O9/2O2a, dated 17.09.2024, [with the liberty ][to ][revive]the same in [r:ase ]the [subject ][matter of the ][appeal ][falls ][in]any of the exceptions [provided ][in ][the Circular ][No.S ]12024dated 15.03.21024. /)the [appeal ][is ][dismissed as ][withdrawn ][in]Accordingly, terms of the libertY [as ]PraYed [for]Accordingly, terms of the libertY [as ]PraYed [for] I, Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shailstand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/. K. SRIN]VASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER CTION OFFICERTo,'l . The hcome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ,A,, Hyderabad.3. 2. The Deputy Commissioner The Commissioner of lncome of lncome-Tax, Cential Tax (Appeals)_Vll, Hyderabad.-Circle _ 4, Hyderabad.4. One CC to Mr. J.V.prasad, Standing Counsel for lncome frx'OepartmertloPUCll. 9nu 99 !o [Sl ][A.V. Raghu ][Ram, ][Advocate ][opUC]6. Two CD Copies kam @^ HIGH COURT DATED:0610112025 JUDGMENTlTTA.No.558 of [2013] THE APPEAL ISDISMISSED ASWITHDRAWN 0,KW c* ST,Af F7ez,)31 [J[]. ][?12-q]t-)L)-.''.\:),1): [_. ][,,',].a l:-,-r.--'t'-"
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