Itta/90/2016 Of The Prl.commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd v. M/S. Amr India Ltd., Hyd
High Court
13 Jun 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/90/2016 Of The Prl.commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd v. M/S. Amr India Ltd., Hyd
Date of order
13 Jun 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/90/2016 Of The Prl.commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd v. M/S. Amr India Ltd., Hyd, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALL] NANDA
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 90 OF 2016
lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act,against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ['B',]Hyderabad in lTA.No.1149l\ydl2014 for assessment ye 2010-11 dated26.11.2014 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax(Appeals)-Vl, Hyderabad in 1TA.No.002412013-1 lDClT, CC-3/C|T (A)-Vll/Hyd dated28.03.2014 preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax,Central Circle-3, Hyderabad PAN/GlR No.AAACA37SOD dated 31 .03.2013.
Between:
The Principal Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT/APPE LLANT
AND
M/s. AMR lndia Ltd., Plot. No. BB, Sarikonda Mansion, Phase-lll, KamalapuriColony, Hyderabad-73.
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA (SC for l.T. Dept.)Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. VASANTH KUMARThe Court made the following: ORDER
\
THE I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL T}HIJ'I,\hIANDTHE H )N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NIIINIDA
|TTA.NO.90 0F 2016
, ) R D E R (Per the Hon'ble sri Justice Uiial Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. [: .Narasimha Sarma learned Standing Oounsel for lncomeTax Department fo the appellant.
None appea rs for the respondent
Mr. B.Narar imha Sarma, Iearned Standing Counse,l submits on thebasis of written ir;tructions dated 07.06.2022 thal the appeal filed by theRevenue is require I to be withdrawn as the issue is coverel under'Vivad SeVishwas' scheme.
That being'r re position, the related appeal is dismisr;r:d on withdrawal.
lnterlocutor' Applications pending, if any, shall starr<l r:,losed. No order
as to costs.
SD/.K.SRINIVASA JOINT .' BEGISTRAR\ \'LtY [)- ][Nt ][z-]SECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPY'
To,21iii. The Chairman, cirr.iiiib [,erof lncome'tax ]['come ][Tax Appellate ][(Appeals)-Vll, ][Tribunal Bench ][3'0 ][Floor, ]['8, ][H'/derabad.' ][r\nnex Building'][..]Aayakar Bhava' , [Basheerbaqh, ][Hyderabad']air"'l no.,,,t, cor imissioner ot"tncoine Tax, [Central Circlr>3. Hyderabad']4o"i [-cito'sii ][' Narasimha [Sarma, SC ][for l.T. ][Dept. ][[o ]'t'ic]qOn" CC to Sri l' [Vasanth ][Kumar, ][Advocate ][ ]6Two CD CoPie:,7One SPare [Co5r ][I]sbr Y
HIGH COURT
DATED: 13/06',2022
ORDER
lTTA.No.90 ot 2016
DISMISSING [""HE ]ITTAAS WITHDRA tVN
@
1Y\[(: ][s ][rA ][7'€]ox.il 0 [:l.!\j ]2m|.,...' [. ],-/
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.