Disposed¶55

Maytas Infra Ltd., Hyd v. the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyd and Ano

Telangana HC6 Jan 2026WP/33769/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maytas Infra Ltd. v. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-9, Hyderabad and another; W.P. No. 33769 of 2010, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, decided 06-01-2026 (P. Sam Koshy, J. author; Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.). Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus against order dated 27.11.2010 referring accounts for years ended 31-3-2003, 31-3-2005 and 31-3-2008 to audit under section 142(2A) I.T. Act; disposed of as infructuous on petitioner's counsel stating cause of action no longer survives; no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed; no merits decided; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

The cause of action in the writ petition does not survive any further, and the writ petition can accordingly be disposed of. ¶32

Maytas Infra Ltd., Hyd Vs the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[^348e 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUST]CE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION O: 33769 OF 2010

¶8

Maytas lnfra Ltd., A company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, with its Regd. Office 3'" Floor, Amogh Plaza, No.6-3-1186/5/A, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by its General Manager ( Legal and Contracts )

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

¶11

The Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 9, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 1, Hyderabad

¶13

RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated In the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any writ, order or direction declaring that the order dt. 2711212010 referring to audit uls. 142 (2A) of the l.T.Act the accounts for the years ended 31-3-2003, 31:3-2005 and 31-3-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and untenable and to declare that the accounts of the petitioner conipany are not liable for audit u/s. 142 (2A).

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. SAGARIKA KONERU, REPRESENTING SRIY. RATNAKAR

¶16