Case LawHigh Court › Itta/680/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itta/680/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Akula Nageswara Rao

High Court 27 Dec 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/680/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Akula Nageswara Rao
Date of order
27 Dec 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/680/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Akula Nageswara Rao, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: In view of the same, the appeal is dismissed only on that ground.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL ITTAMP.No.667 of 2017 In/and ITTA.No.680 of 2017 Date:27.12.2017 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad. .....Appellant And: Akula Nageswara Rao, Prop. Karnakshi Bankers, Amalapuram. .....Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Mrs. M.Kiranmayee for Mr. J.V.Prasad Senior Standing Counsel for IT Department The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) ITTA.No.680 of 2017 is filed by the Revenue against order, dated 28.7.2009, in ITA.No.591/Vizag/2008 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam. ITTAMP.No.667 of 2017 is filed for condonation of delay of 2,822 days in re-presenting ITTA.No.680 of 2017. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to deal with this application separately. At the hearing, Mrs. M.Kiranmayee, learned counsel representing Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, has fairly submitted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal falls below the monetary limit specified by Circular No.21 of 2015, dated 10.12.2015, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In view of the same, the appeal is dismissed only on that ground. As a sequel, ITTAMP.No.667 of 2017 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY __________________ JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
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