Case LawHigh Court › Wp/30258/2012 Of U.v Ramana Murthy Raju...

Wp/30258/2012 Of U.v Ramana Murthy Raju v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 26 Jun 2025 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · aphc
Parties
Wp/30258/2012 Of U.v Ramana Murthy Raju v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
26 Jun 2025
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/30258/2012 Of U.v Ramana Murthy Raju v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

APHC010242222012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT [3526] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 30258/2012 Between: 1. U.V RAMANA MURTHY RAJU,, S/O SHRI RAJAN RAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.50-118-1/7, N.C. LAY OUT, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013 ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.50-118-1/7, N.C. LAY OUT, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), RANGE-3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM-5 30020. BHAVAN, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM-5 30020. 2. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAMAAYAKAR BHAVAN, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM-530020.BHAVAN, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM-530020. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM-5 30020.GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM-5 30020. 5. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, NEAR SUPER BAZAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. NEAR SUPER BAZAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. KASYAP DEVELOPERS P LTD, REGD. OFFICE NO.54-15/1/27, G.F.J.R ENCLAVE, NEAR BALAYESU CHURCH, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.UPPALAPATI SUKUMAR G.F.J.R ENCLAVE, NEAR BALAYESU CHURCH, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.UPPALAPATI SUKUMAR VARMA ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring that the order of attachment issued u/s 281B of the LT Act, 1961 vide order bearing ITO/W-3(2)NSP/10-11 dt. 10-11-2010 issued by the respondent No.1 and also the subsequent extension of the provisional attachment vide order bearing F.No.AAFPU 6285 N/ACIT/Circ.3(1)/281B/2012-13 dt. 26-4-2012 issued by the respondent No.2 attaching the property being vacant land admeasuring 5727 sq.yds. in Town Survey No.1032-B, Block No.45, Beside Hotel Meghalaya, Waltair Ward in Division No.18, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 38578 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned order of attachment bearing F.No.AAFPU 6285 N/ACIT/Circ.3(1)/ 281B/2012-13 dated 26.04.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 attaching the property being vacant land admeasuring 5727 sq.yards in Town Survey No.1032-B, Block No.45, Beside Hotel Meghalaya, Waltair Ward in Division No.18, Ram Nagar, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P S R CHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following order: Though the matter is listed under the caption “for Dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2. for non-prosecution. In view of the same, this Court is constrained to dismiss the writ petition 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:27.06.2025 Ksj __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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