The Telangana High Court ruled that Telangana Beverages Corporation (TGBCL) was not required to pay ₹226 crore attributed to Telangana from an Income Tax Department demand against undivided Andhra Pradesh, according to The New Indian Express. The paper reported that the High Court dismissed the department’s appeal and left an ITAT order in place, but its account does not provide the judgment or explain the Court’s reasoning.
What the report says the High Court decided
The New Indian Express reported on 10 October 2026 that the High Court ruled TGBCL was not required to pay the ₹226 crore attributed to Telangana. The report frames the result as the dismissal of an Income Tax Department appeal and the upholding of an ITAT order. The available account does not identify the appeal number or reproduce either order, so the procedural description and outcome should be understood as the newspaper’s reporting rather than an independently checked account of the court record.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
How the reported amounts relate
- ₹544 crore — The New Indian Express, 2026: the paper’s reported total demand against undivided Andhra Pradesh.
- ₹226 crore — The New Indian Express, 2026: the portion the report says was attributed to Telangana and that TGBCL was not required to pay.
These are figures reported by the newspaper, not independently verified official totals. The report does not explain how the Telangana share was calculated or allocated.
What is known about the dispute’s timing
The newspaper places the dispute in 2007, when Telangana was part of undivided Andhra Pradesh. It says the High Court delivered its judgment on the Friday before the report’s 10 October 2026 update. The account does not give an exact judgment date, assessment year, or details of the original assessment.
#1 Best Overall
What the available account does not establish
The report does not state the specific tax issue, the assessment years, the grounds raised by the Income Tax Department, what the ITAT decided, or the High Court’s legal reasoning. It also supplies no case number, bench composition, or explanation of the demand’s allocation between the states. Without the underlying judgment and ITAT order, it is not possible to say whether the High Court dismissed the appeal on the merits or on another basis.
The New Indian Express account also names TGBCL managing director C Hari Kiran, High Court Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy, assistant commissioner Seelam Srinivasa Rao, and general manager B Amsha in connection with a post-verdict meeting. It includes no direct quotations from them, so no statement or judicial language should be inferred from those names.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
