High Court for the State of Telangana · Procedural orders and remands

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad v. Savijana Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd.

I.T.T.A. No. 55/2010 ·

Revenue appeal withdrawn under Circular 9/2024, with revival reserved if Circular 5/2024 exceptions apply.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue’s ITTA 55/2010 against Savijana Sea Foods Pvt Ltd challenged the Tribunal’s 31 October 2007 order in ITA 965/Hyd/2004 for AY 2001-02.

Source: PDF p.1, caption and prayer

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

Revenue counsel requested withdrawal in view of CBDT Circular 9/2024 dated 17 September 2024 and liberty to seek revival if the appeal fell within exceptions in Circular 5/2024 dated 15 March 2024.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraphs 1–2

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn and expressly granted liberty to seek revival if the case fell within the exceptions in Circular 5/2024.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraph 3

4. OUTCOME

The appeal ended without costs and pending miscellaneous applications were closed. The order contains no adjudication of the underlying tax merits or finding that a particular exception applies.

Source: PDF p.2, concluding paragraph

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

The two circular references serve different roles

Counsel cited Circular 9/2024 as the reason for withdrawal, while the operative reservation refers to exceptions in Circular 5/2024. Keeping those references separate accurately states the Court’s conditional disposal without attempting to restate the circulars beyond this source.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraphs 1–3

Revival is a reserved possibility, not a present finding

The exception condition must be satisfied before the reservation could support a later revival request. The Court does not identify an exception, determine its applicability or automatically reopen the appeal. Nor does withdrawal affirm the Tribunal’s reasoning on merits.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraph 3

The docket limits what can be inferred

This old assessment-year appeal has its own Tribunal identity. Similar wording in other withdrawal orders does not make those appeals the same case or establish a shared substantive issue.

Source: PDF pp.1–2, prayer and order

Source and verification

Complete 3-page original reviewed; source bytes verified.

Original PDF: 3 pages · SHA-256: 9325db1611af3fcfbb71a0903f9f76a337a0a08b02132ffd02e79ea036093d1b

Full original and all five panels re-reviewed on 21 October 2026.

Current law and subsequent treatment not independently verified.

Subsequent proceedings and current judicial treatment have not been independently verified.

AI disclosure and professional disclaimer

AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.

General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.