Case LawHigh Court › Itta/707/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itta/707/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Ivy Comptech Limited

High Court 17 Dec 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/707/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Ivy Comptech Limited
Date of order
17 Dec 2014
Assessment year(s)
2005-2006
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itta/707/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Ivy Comptech Limited, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
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.707 OF 2014 DATED:17.12.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax – III.T. Towers, A.C. GuardsHyderabad … Appellant And M/s. IVY Comptech Limited8-2-269/A/2/1 to 6, Sri Nilaya Cyber PlazoRoad No.2, 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.707 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 17.1.2014, in relationto assessment year 2005-2006, on the following suggested question oflaw: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’bleTribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in rejecting the comparable companiesadopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) which was selected by theTax Payer itself and remitting the case to the Assessing Officer for freshconsideration in terms of its directions to determine the subject issue?” We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for theappellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, in relation to the aforesaidquestion, has rendered a fact finding which instances are acceptableor non-acceptable. We do not think that we should substitute ourappreciation of fact in the absence of any allegation of perversity. Wehave seen the judgment and order and the findings of the learnedTribunal and it does not appear to us that the same are not based uponwithout any material. We do not find any element law to decide in thisappeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order asto costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 17.12.2014bnr
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