Wp/4446/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Narasannapeta v. The Income Tax Oficer
High Court
28 Oct 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/4446/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Narasannapeta v. The Income Tax Oficer
Date of order
28 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/4446/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Narasannapeta v. The Income Tax Oficer, 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.RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.4446 of 2008
28.10.2010
Between:
The Agricultural Market Committee,Narasannapet, rep.by its Secretary,Narasannapet, Srikakulam District.
… Petitioner
And
The Income Tax Officer,Ward-1, Srikakulam,Srikakulam DistrictAnd others.
... Respondents
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION No.4446 of 2008
ORDER(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The Agricultural Market Committee, Narasannapeta (AMC) filedthe instant writ petition assailing the notice, dated 19.02.2008, issued bythe Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Srikakulam (ITO) under Section226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By impugned notice, firstrespondent required the fourth respondent, namely, State Bank of India,Narasannapet, to pay a sum of Rs.11,53,893/- held by the latter in theaccount of the petitioner AMC.
This Court admitted the matter on 03.03.2008. When the matter istaken up for hearing, the standing counsel for AMC
Sri K.Madhava Reddy submits that impugned notice has beenwithdrawn by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax after thepetitioner AMC paid some amount. He also submits that pursuant to theorders of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the said amounthas been refunded. The cause of action, therefore, does not survive asrightly pointed out by learned standing counsel.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
28.10.2010pln
______________________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
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.