Case LawHigh Court › Wp/3511/2008 Of The Agricultural Market...

Wp/3511/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 28 Oct 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/3511/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
28 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/3511/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The 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 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.3511 of 2008 28.10.2010 Between: The Agricultural Market Committee,Kothapeta, rep.by its Selection Grade Secretary,East Godavari District. … Petitioner And The Income Tax Officer,Ward No.2, Amalapuram,East Godavari DistrictAnd others. ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION No.3511 of 2008 ORDER(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The Agricultural Market Committee, Kothapeta, (AMC) filed theinstant writ petition assailing the notice, dated 13.02.2008, issued by theIncome Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Amalapuram, under Section 226(3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. By impugned notice, first respondent requiredthe third respondent, namely, State Bank of India, Kothapeta, to pay asum of Rs.1,46,51,189/- held by the latter in the account of the petitionerAMC. This Court admitted the matter on 21.02.2008. When the matter istaken up for hearing, the standing counsel for AMC Sri K.Madhava Reddy submits that impugned notice has beenwithdrawn by the ITO after the petitioner AMC paid some amount to theITO. He also submits that pursuant to the orders of the learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, the said amount has been refunded. The causeof action, therefore, does not survive as rightly pointed out by learnedstanding counsel. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 28.10.2010pln ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
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