State of Andhra Pradesh v. Commercial Tax Officer

169 ITR 564High Court1988#6084 most cited
19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing State of Andhra Pradesh v. Commercial Tax Officer

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 644/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…o have applied the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 read with judgment of jurisdictional A.P High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool (169 ITR 564, 570-2) and held the penalty proceedings to be invalid in law.” 4.2. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under : “1. The CIT(A) has erred both on facts and law. 2. The ld.CIT(A) is not correct in fact and in law in cancelling the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act when the assessee itself accepted the quantum additions made by the As…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1243/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…o have applied the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 read with judgment of jurisdictional A.P High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool (169 ITR 564, 570-2) and held the penalty proceedings to be invalid in law.” 4.2. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under : “1. The CIT(A) has erred both on facts and law. 2. The ld.CIT(A) is not correct in fact and in law in cancelling the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act when the assessee itself accepted the quantum additions made by the As…