Wp/25466/2007 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhongiri v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Apeals ) Iv
High Court
10 Nov 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/25466/2007 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhongiri v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Apeals ) Iv
Date of order
10 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/25466/2007 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhongiri v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Apeals ) Iv, 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 order — as passed by the High Court
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.25466 of 2007
Dated:10.11.2010
Between:
The Agricultural Market Committee,Bhongiri, Nalgonda District, Rep.by its Secretary.
and
…Petitioner
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV,Aayakar Bhavan, III rd Floor, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad,And others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.25466 of 2007
ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhongiri (AMC), filed theinstant writ petition assailing the notice, dated 25.10.2007, issued bythe Income Tax Officer, Suryapet (ITO) under Section 226(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. By impugned notice, the second respondentrequired the third respondent, namely, State Bank of Hyderabad,Bhongiri, to pay a sum of Rs.2,72,055/- held by the latter in the accountof the petitioner AMC.
This Court admitted the matter on 30.11.2007. When the matteris taken up for hearing, the Standing Counsel for AMC
Sri K.Upender Reddy submits that impugned notice has beenwithdrawn by the ITO after the petitioner AMC paid some amount. Healso submits that pursuant to the orders of the learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, the said amount has been refunded. The cause ofaction, therefore, does not survive as rightly pointed out by theStanding Counsel.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
No costs. _______________(V.V.S.RAO, J)_____________________________(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)10.11.2010vs
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.