Case LawHigh Court › One Cc To Sri C v. Narasimham, Advocate...

One Cc To Sri C v. Narasimham, Advocate Iopuc

High Court 12 Aug 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
One Cc To Sri C v. Narasimham, Advocate Iopuc
Date of order
12 Aug 2021
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In One Cc To Sri C v. Narasimham, Advocate Iopuc, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: 2In that vierv of the matter, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.No costs.No costs.

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 THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 358 OF 2008 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 of [the ][lncome ][Tax Act, ][against]the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad [Bench, ][Hyderabad ][in]lTA.No.995/Hyd/2007 Dept (Hyderabad A Bench), for assessment [year ][2002-2003]dated 29.08.2008 [preferred ]against the Order of the Commissioner of [lncome ][Tax]Appeals-Vl, Appeal No.01 64106-07 lft OMd.1 [1 ][(4)/Hyd/ClT(A)-Vl-2007-2008 ][preferred]against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, [Ward ][11 ][(4), ][Hyderabad PAN/GIR ][No.] dated 31 .03.2006. Between: G. Ramanlal, Prop: Balaji Jewellers, [Olo.748, AS ][Rao Nagar, ][Hyderabad.] ,..APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward [- ]11 [4], [Hyderabad, ][lT ][Towers' AC ][Gaurds,]Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C. [V' ] Counsel for the Respondent: SRI [B. ] The Court delivered the following: \ HONOURAIILE SRI.IUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND HONOURABLE DT.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHERI.T.I'.A. No.358 C)F 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon,bte sti Justice a, Ralasheker Red.rdy) Learned counsel for the appellant has a filed a letter seekingwithdrawal of this appeal on the ground that the appellant wishes to availthe benelits under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020,int!'oduced by the Central Govemment.withdrawal of this appeal on the ground that the appellant wishes to availthe benelits under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020,int!'oduced by the Central Govemment. 2In that vierv of the matter, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.No costs.No costs. 3. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also standdismissed. Sd/. K.SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRARr ll')SECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY// To, '1 . The Chairman, lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad ,A, Bench, l.T.Buildings, AC Guards, Hyderddad.Buildings, AC Guards, Hyderddad. 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax Appeals-Vl, Hyderabad, Adarshnaoar.Appeals-Vl, Hyderabad, Adarshnaoar.3'o f toor, Aaya ka r Bhava n, sirn";ij[!6'lxvoi,Li.io. 3. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward _ 1.1 [4], Hyderabad 4. One CC to Sri C. V. Narasimham, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies 7. One Spare CopygbruG- HIGH COURT DATED: 1210812021 JUDGMENTITTA.No.358 of 2008 DISMISSING THE APPEALAS WITHDRAWN g'f ATE o9,9n' '.(.)25N$$11r)+^J/,,. [r ][(.'r]':-
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