M/s. Vijaya Wines vs. The Income Tax Officer,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that identical matters had already been decided by the same court. The court respectfully agreed with previous judgments on the matter.
What were the facts?
The assessee firm's appeal was admitted on the question of whether it was entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act. This issue arose from an assessment order and subsequent appeals through the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee firm is not entitled to registration despite satisfying the requirements of Section 184 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- 334 ITR 3873 citing334 ITR 387 · 2011 · HC
rl 134471 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 284 OF 2008 Appeal filed under Section 260(,A) of the lncome-Tax Act., 1961, against the order dated. 20.M.2007 passed in lTA.No. 245lHydl20o7 for the assessment year 1998-1999 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A' (SMC) preferred against the Order dated. 28.11.2006 passed in Appeal.No 284IKGM/C|T(A)N106-07 for the Assessment yeall998-1999 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada preferred against the Assessment Order dated: 06.10.2006 passed in PAN/GIR No. V-315 on the file of the lncome Tax officer, Ward-2, Kothagudem. Between: M/s. Viiaya Wines, Khammam ..APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Kothagudem ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Srinarayan Toshniwal representing Sri A. V. Krishna Koundinya Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Sapna, Junior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:
t I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA ITTA No.284 OF 2008 JUDGMENT gter Hon'hle Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard N{r. Srinarayan Toshniwal, leamed counsel representing Mr. A.V.Krishna Koundinya, leamed counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sapna, leamed Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondent. Perused the record 2. The instarrt appeal was admifted on the question of law as to whether thc Trit,unal was.iustified in holding that the assessee firm is not entitled lo registration more so after the requirements of Section 18.1 of the Income Tax Act, l96l are satisfied 3. Today, u,'ren the matter is taken up.for hearing, it has been brought to our notice that identical matters have already been decided by this l{igh Court as early as in 20l l in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Swarna Bar & Reslauran/ and the said view has also been recently followed by this Division , I '(20r 1) 334 ITR 387 (AP)
2 To, VH/gh Bench in ITTA No. I 66 of 2008, decided on 18.12.2024. We are in respectful agreement with the decision rendered in aforesaid ITTA and the instant appeal, therefore, stands decided' against the appellant. 4. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA J INT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s CTION OFFICER '1 . The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'A' (SMC) 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)' Vijayawada 3. The lncome Tax officer, Ward-Z' Kothagudem' 4. One CC to Sri A. V. Krishna Koundinya, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Ms. Sapna' Junior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department loPUcl 6. Two CD CoPies \ 1*
HIGH COURT DATED: 17t0212025 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.284 of 2008 DISMISSING THE ITTA )i *1/ : t:..,, -. r..,,t( \'_ _gy' <* -'-.*--:;-l'f ' \.\ ..jr. t0 1',<i $r.a1 e 4 AP8 2[6 Zrl q. U (( :l t
More judgments on Section 184
- Sree Lakshmi Financiers, Virudhunagar vs ITO, Ward-3, VirudhunagarITA 2737/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private…ITA 3084/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private…ITA 3081/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
- Trimurti Steels, Bhubaneswar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), BhubaneswarITA 625/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: Heard19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13
- Vikrant, Shamli vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), ShamliITA 5129/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026