Case Law › High Court › Wp/6385/2012 Of Mr. Satish Kumar Botcha...

Wp/6385/2012 Of Mr. Satish Kumar Botcha v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 20 Feb 2013 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · taphc

Parties

Date of order

20 Feb 2013

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/6385/2012 Of Mr. Satish Kumar Botcha v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed asinfructuous.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEGODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEM.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6385 of 2012 Between: Satish Kumar Botcha. And The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Range-6, IT Towers,AC Guards, Hyderabad and others. …Petitioner …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEGODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEM.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6385 of 2012 Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) It is the synoptic submission of the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the cause in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication. The writpetition is filed against the order of the 1[st] respondent rejecting thepetitioner’s application inter alia for stay of the Order of Assessment, pendingappeal. It is represented that the appeal preferred by the assessee has itselfbeen disposed of on 12-12-2012. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed asinfructuous. No costs. _____________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ______________________________ 20[th] February, 2013.GRR/SCS M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, 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.