Case LawHigh Court › Wp/5247/2008 Of The Agricultural Market...

Wp/5247/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Chintalapudi v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 28 Oct 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/5247/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Chintalapudi v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
28 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/5247/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee, Chintalapudi v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 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.5247 of 2008 28.10.2010 Between: The Agricultural Market Committee,Chintalapudi, rep.by its Special Grade Secretary (FAC),Chintalapudi,West Godavari District. … Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-1, Eluru,West Godavari DistrictAnd others. ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION No.5247 of 2008 ORDER(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The Agricultural Market Committee, Chintalapudi, (AMC) filed theinstant writ petition assailing the notice, dated 21.02.2008, issued by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Eluru under Section226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By impugned notice, firstrespondent required the third respondent, namely, State Bank of India,Chintalapudi, to pay a sum of Rs.14,94,658/- held by the latter in theaccount of the petitioner AMC. This Court admitted the matter on 12.03.2008. 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 as rightly 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)
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