Itta/7/2017 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd v. M/S. C3I Supports Services Pvt Ltd., Hyd
High Court
24 Mar 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/7/2017 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd v. M/S. C3I Supports Services Pvt Ltd., Hyd
Date of order
24 Mar 2025
Assessment year(s)
2010-11
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/7/2017 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd v. M/S. C3I Supports Services Pvt Ltd., Hyd, 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.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABD
MONDAY, THE TWENW FOURTH DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
ITTA No: 7 ol 2017
Appeal filed under section 260A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved bythe order dated 07-04-2016 in ITA No.103/Hyd/2015, for the assessment year2010-11 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "A",Hyderabad.
Between:
The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-'l , Hyderabad.
...Appellant
AND
M/s. C3i Supports Services Pvt Ltd., 2nd floor, Orion Block, plot.No. 17,Vanenburg lt Part, Software Units Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081 .
...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, Junior Standing Counselrepresenting Mr. J.V. Prasad, Sr. Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department
Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSIN(; NAI\DIKONDA
ITTA No.7 OF 2017
JUDGMENT[(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justice [P.Sam ][Koshy)]
Heard Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior [Standing]
Counsel representing Mr. J.V.Prasad, [leamed ][Senio' ][Standing]Counsel lor the Income Tax Department [for ][the appellant. ][Perused]the record.
'lhis appeal under Section 260,{ of the Income Tax Act,260,{ of the Income Tax Act,of the Income Tax Act,the Income Tax Act,Income Tax Act,Tax Act,Act,
'lhis 2. appeal under Section 260,{ of the Income Tax Act,260,{ of the Income Tax Act,of the Income Tax Act,the Income Tax Act,Income Tax Act,Tax Act,Act,1961, has been preferred by the Revenue as th: [appellant]against the order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the [Incorne ][Tax]Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A' [Hyderabad,]lnI.T.A.No. l}3lHydl2}l5 for the Assessment Year [2010- ]
3. Central Board of Direct Taxes [(CBDT) ]has [isst ][ed ][Circular]No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024, amending [the previcus ][Circular]No.5 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024,by futher [enhancing tlre monetary]timits for filing appeats by the Income [Tax ][Departmen ][t ][before ][the]Income Tax Appellate Tribunals, High Courts [and ][Suprerne ][Court]
\I
as a measure [for ][reducing ][litigation' ][In ][paragraph ][2 ][of ][the ][said]Circular, [we ][find ][that the ][monetary ][limit ][fixed ][for ][filing ][an ][appeal]before the High [Court ][is ][Rs.2.00 crore']
4. In the instant [appeal, ][tax effect is ][we[[ ][below ][the ][monetary]limit
5. Therefore, the [appeal ][filed ][by the Deparlment ][is ][dismissed in]terms of the [aforesaid ][Circular ][No'9 ][of ][2024 ][dated' 17'09'2024']if [the ][appeal comes ][within ][the ][exception ][of ][Circular]However, No.5 of 2024, [it ][would ][be ][open ][to ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][to]seek revival [ofthe ][appeal. ][There shall ][be ][no ][order ][as ][to ][costs']
6. Consequentty, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending' ][il ][any' ][shatt]
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:2410312025
JUDGMENTlTTA.No.7 of 2017
DISMISSING OFTHE APPEAL
1[l6][le{]
;trE [SfA]15:(o1II JUil [zIH]\
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.