IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION Nos.31002 and 31003 of 2025

Dated:17.12.2025

Between:

BA Continuum India Private Limited

…Petitioner

and

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Circle 1(1), B Block, 7^th Floor,

I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Masab Tank,

Hyderabad – 500 004,

and 5 others.

…Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

Learned counsel Sri Nishanth Thakkar, representing

learned counsel Sri T.Pradyoth, appears for the petitioner.

Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing

Counsel for Income Tax Department, appears for respondents No.1 to 5.

2. The present writ petitions are filed seeking the following reliefs:

W.P.No.31002 of 2025:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, directing Respondent No.1 to pass an Order Giving Effect to CIT(A) order dated 31 August 2015 (Annexure “P-9”) and issue consequential refund along with statutory interest under section 244A of the Act within a period of 3 months, for costs of the petition and pass any other order or orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

W.P.No.31003 of 2025:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, directing Respondent No.1 to decide the rectification application filed on 12 February 2018 by the Petitioner (Annexure “P-10”) filed against the OGE to the order of CIT(A) within a period of 3 months, for costs of the petition and pass any other order or orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, since the refund has been sanctioned and an order under Section

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has also been passed, copies whereof have been supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the instant writ petitions.

4. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing that the refund be paid within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

17.12.2025 vs