Wp/4554/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram v. The Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle I
High Court
28 Oct 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/4554/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram v. The Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle I
Date of order
28 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/4554/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram v. The Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle I, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The cause ofaction, therefore, does not survive as rightly pointed out by learned standing counsel.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.4554 of 2008
28.10.2010
Between:
The Agricultural Market Committee,Bhimavaram, Rep. By its Sel.Grade Secretray,Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.
… Petitioner
And
The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-1, K.K.S.Complex, Srinivasa Theatre Road,R.R.Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District,And others.
... Respondents
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION No.4554 of 2008
ORDER(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram (AMC), filed theinstant writ petition assailing the notice, dated 21.02.2008, issued by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Eluru, under Section226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By impugned notice, firstrespondent required the third respondent, namely, State Bank of India,Bhimavaram Branch, to pay a sum of Rs.2,19,45,134/- held by the latterin the account of the petitioner AMC.
This Court admitted the matter on 04.03.2008. 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 to the Assistant Commissioner. 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 learned
standing counsel.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
______________________________(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)28.10.2010pln
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.
EaseValue