Case LawHigh Court › Wp/26111/2007 Of The Agricultural Market...

Wp/26111/2007 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Choutuppal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Vi

High Court 10 Nov 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/26111/2007 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Choutuppal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Vi
Date of order
10 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/26111/2007 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Choutuppal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Vi, 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.26111 of 2007 Dated:10.11.2010 Between: The Agricultural Market Committee,Choutuppal, Nalgonda District, Rep.by its Secretary. and …Petitioner The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VI,Aayakar Bhavan, IIIrd floor, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad,And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26111 of 2007 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The Agricultural Market Committee, Choutuppal (AMC), filed theinstant writ petition assailing the notice, dated 13.11.2007, 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,Choutuppal, to pay a sum of Rs.10,14,262/- held by the latter in theaccount of the petitioner AMC. This Court admitted the matter on 07.12.2007. 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
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