Case LawHigh Court › Wp/10416/2008 Of The Agricultural Market...

Wp/10416/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Commissioner Income Tax Officer

High Court 10 Nov 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/10416/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Commissioner Income Tax Officer
Date of order
10 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp/10416/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Commissioner Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10416 of 2008 Dated:10.11.2010 Between: The Agricultural Market Committee,Khammam, Rep.by its Secretary. and …Petitioner The Commissioner Income Tax Officer,Vijayawada, Krishna District,And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10416 of 2008 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The Agricultural Market Committee, Khammam (AMC), filed theinstant writ petition assailing the notice, dated 22.04.2008, issued bythe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Khammam,under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By impugnednotice, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax required the fourthrespondent, namely, Sub Treasury Officer, Khammam, to pay a sum ofRs.2,16,10,207/- held by the latter in the account of the petitioner AMC.This Court admitted the matter on 02.05.2008. When the matteris taken up for hearing, the Standing Counsel for AMC Sri K.Upender Reddy submits that impugned notice has beenwithdrawn by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax after thepetitioner AMC paid some amount. He also submits that pursuant tothe orders of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the saidamount has been refunded. The cause of action, therefore, does notsurvive as rightly pointed out by the Standing Counsel. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No costs. _______________(V.V.S.RAO, J)_____________________________(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)10.11.2010vs
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