Case LawHigh Court › Itta/93/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income T...

Itta/93/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajahmundry v. M/S.b.krishna Murthy Kakinada And 2 Ors

High Court 10 Dec 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/93/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajahmundry v. M/S.b.krishna Murthy Kakinada And 2 Ors
Date of order
10 Dec 2013
Assessment year(s)
1993-94
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itta/93/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajahmundry v. M/S.b.krishna Murthy Kakinada And 2 Ors, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Since the questions raised in the present appeal are squarely coveredby the common judgment dated 21.06.2011 of a Division Bench of thisCourt in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003 and batch, following the commonjudgment in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003, this appeal is allowed answering thequestions in favour of the revenu...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMI.T.T.APPEAL No.93 OF 2002 JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah) The present appeal is filed by the Income Tax Departmentraising the questions of law relating to the assessment year 1993-94aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2002 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal in I.T.A No.560/Hyd/1997, Visakhapatnam. 2) When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri S. SeshidharaReddy, learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department,would fairly submit that the questions involved in the present appealare similar to the questions raised in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003 and batch inrelation to assessment year 1993-94, wherein a Division Bench of thisCourt set aside the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunaldirecting that the net profit be estimated at 2% of the estimated salesor 16% of the purchase value whichever is higher. Copy of thecommon judgment in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003 and batch has been filed. Since the questions raised in the present appeal are squarely coveredby the common judgment dated 21.06.2011 of a Division Bench of thisCourt in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003 and batch, following the commonjudgment in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003, this appeal is allowed answering thequestions in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Noorder as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this I.T.T.A. shall stand disposed of. 3) Let a copy of the common judgment in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003 andbatch be tagged to the copy of this judgment. ______________________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Date:10.12.2013. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Gk. I.T.T.APPEAL No.93 OF 2002 Date:10.12.2013.
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