Rc/6/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyd v. M/S Sri Kanya Combines Makavarapalem
High Court
18 Feb 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Rc/6/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyd v. M/S Sri Kanya Combines Makavarapalem
Date of order
18 Feb 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Rc/6/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyd v. M/S Sri Kanya Combines Makavarapalem, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: As a sequel to the dismissal of the appeal, Miscellaneous Petitions, if anypending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ G.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH&HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
R.C.No.6 of 2002
ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)
Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income-taxand assisted by Sri S.Sashidhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Income-tax for the Revenue and Smt. K. Neeraja, learned counsel for the solerespondent.
This Application is filed by the Applicant under Section 256(1) of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) challenging the order dated23.11.2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-B,Hyderabad in I.T.A.Nos.1017 and 1018/Hyd/1992 relating to the assessmentyears 1990-91 and 1989-90.
Considering the various departmental Instructions issued by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes and in the light of Section 268-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, this Court, by order dated 24.01.2014 in W.T.A.No. 24 of 2004and batch, took a view that the appeals, where the tax effect is below themonetary limits prescribed in the Instructions, need to be dismissed.
In the light of the above decision, we see from the order of assessmentdated 29.12.1989that the tax liability was determined at Rs.1,18,906/-. In viewof the fact that the quantum of liability involved in the present case being lessthan the amount specified in the Circular issued by the Central Board of DirectTaxes (C.B.D.T.), we are not inclined to examine the appeal on merits.
The referred case is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel to the dismissal of the appeal, Miscellaneous Petitions, if anypending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________
G. CHANDRAIAH, J
Date: 18.02.2014Gk
____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
R.C.No.6 of 2002
18.02.2014
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.