Case LawHigh Court › Wta/126/2005 Of Commissioner Of Income T...

Wta/126/2005 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi v. Nb. Mir Kazim Ali

High Court 24 Jan 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wta/126/2005 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi v. Nb. Mir Kazim Ali
Date of order
24 Jan 2014
Assessment year(s)
1990-91
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wta/126/2005 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi v. Nb. Mir Kazim Ali, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: As a sequel to the dismissal of the appeal, Miscellaneous Petitions, ifany pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. ___________________ G.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH&HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMW.T.A.No. 126 of 2005 JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah) Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income-taxand assisted by Sri S.Sashidhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Income-tax for the Revenue and none appeared for the sole respondent. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 27(A) of the WealthTax Act, 1957 (for short “the Act”) challenging the order dated 27.12.2002 of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad inW.T.A.No.104/Hyd/1998 relating to the assessment year 1990-91. Considering the various departmental Instructions issued by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes and in the light of Section 268-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, this Court, by order dated 24.01.2014 in W.T.A.No. 24 of 2004and batch, took a view that the appeals, where the tax effect is below themonetary limits prescribed in the Instructions, need to be dismissed. In the light of the above decision, we see from the order of assessmentdated 30.03.1995 that the tax liability was determined at Rs.2,804/-. In view ofthe negligible quantum of tax liability involved in the present case, we are notinclined to examine the appeal on merits. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel to the dismissal of the appeal, Miscellaneous Petitions, ifany pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. ___________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 24.01.2014 _____________________ bcj CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH&HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.T.A.No. 126 of 2005 24.01.2014
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