Dismissed

International Education Academy , Hyderabad. v. Dy. Director of Income Tax [E] Iii, Hyderabad.

Telangana HC11 Aug 2025ITTA/147/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Income tax appeal for assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05 was dismissed as infructuous after counsel for the appellant submitted that the subject matter had become infructuous and she did not wish to press the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

International Education Academy , Hyderabad. Vs Dy. Director of… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^348sI

¶2

IN THE^{HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,^{THE ELEVENTHDAY OF AUGUST} '"rfiio iuousnuo nruo TWENTY FlvE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICESUDDALA CHALAPATHIRAO} INCOM^{E TAXTRIBU NAL A} PPEAL NO:1^{47 0F} 2010

¶6

Appeal^{under section260A of the lncome Tax Act' '1961 aggrieved by the} order^{dated 08-09-2008in ITA No494t{ydl2O07& 518/Hyd/2008 for the} Assessment^{years 2002-03 & 2004-05 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate} Tribunal,^{A-Bench,HYderabad'}

¶7

Between: "= r nL"rnutionrl^{Education Academy,Hyderabad}

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

AND ^''"Dy. Director of lncome tax [E] lll' Hyderabad

¶10

...RESPONDENT

¶11

Counsel^{for the Appellant:Ms' SagarikaKoneru' counsel representing} Mr. Y.^Ratnakar

¶12

Counsel^{for the Respondent: SpecialGovt Pleader for Tax}

¶13

The Court^{delivered the following:JUDGMENT}

¶14

THE I{ONOURABLE SRI .ruSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶15

THE HoNouR^sr.s sRr Jusrtil s,DDALA .HALA.ATHT RAo

¶16

I.T.T.A.No.147 of 2010

¶17

JUDGfUEI{L @er Hon'bte Sri.Iusrice p.Sum Koshl)

¶18

Ms. Sagarika Koneru, Iearned counsel representing

¶19

Mr. Y.Ratnakar, leamed counsel for the appellant, submits that

¶20

the subject matter has since become infructuous and she does not

¶21

want to press [he appeal any further.

¶22

2' Accordingly, the Appear is dismissed as having become

¶23

infructuous.^'l-here shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶25

stand closed.

¶26

Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The lncome Tax Appellate Trib unal, A-Bench, Hyd erabad 2. One CC to tt/r. Y. Ratnakar, Ad vocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs kr GP FOR TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies

Kam,?SL

(

l i i I l I

: l I I I I I I I I t : , ! i , i , I : a a i a

¶36

HIGH COURT

¶37

DATED:1 1108t2025

¶38

.lr- ,..,( .
i-?' i^
/i
r'i
';.
I
I
! j 1$ SEP 21125 (l?
,')
t t
11--.-. ..-.,;O

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

lTTA.No.147 of 2010

¶41

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶42

'uni q,

International Education Academy , Hyderabad. v. Dy. Director of Income Tax [E] Iii, Hyderabad.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

International Education Academy , Hyderabad. v. Dy. Director of Income Tax [E] Iii, Hyderabad.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kingshuk Nag Vs Income Tax Officer

Mohammed Abdul Rehman Vs The Income Tax Officer

Yadaiah Maripelly Vs Assessment Unit

International Education Academy, Vs Dy. Director of Income Tax [E] III

K.Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Vangala Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.