Wp/4992/2009 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Echoda v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward
High Court
10 Nov 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/4992/2009 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Echoda v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward
Date of order
10 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/4992/2009 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Echoda v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward, 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.RAOAND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.4992 of 2009
Dated:10.11.2010
Between:
The Agricultural Market Committee,Echoda, Adilabad District,Rep.by its Secretary.
and
…Petitioner
The Income Tax Officer,Ward No.1, Adilabad District,And others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.4992 of 2009
ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The Agricultural Market Committee, Echoda, Adilabad (AMC),filed the instant writ petition assailing the notice, dated 27.02.2009,issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Adilabad (ITO) underSection 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By impugned notice, thefirst respondent required the third respondent, namely, DistrictTreasury Office, Adilabad, to pay a sum of Rs.49,71,957/- held by thelatter in the account of the petitioner AMC.
This Court admitted the matter on 01.04.2010. 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
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.