Amar Pratap Developers Private Limited, A-21, Sadulganj, Bikaner v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Bpu), Room
High Court
03 Jan 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Amar Pratap Developers Private Limited, A-21, Sadulganj, Bikaner v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Bpu), Room
Date of order
03 Jan 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Amar Pratap Developers Private Limited, A-21, Sadulganj, Bikaner v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Bpu), Room, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In view of the submissions made, the petition is dismissed ashaving become infructuous.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1456/2022
1. Kishan Lal Nayak S/o Pira Ram Nayak, Aged About 48Years, R/o Nayako Ka Baas, Village- Palana, District-Bikaner, Pin- 334402- Rajasthan.Years, R/o Nayako Ka Baas, Village- Palana, District-Bikaner, Pin- 334402- Rajasthan.
2. Amar Pratap Developers Private Limited, A-21, SadulGanj, Bikaner Through Its Director Shri Ashok KumarModi. Age 64 Years.Ganj, Bikaner Through Its Director Shri Ashok KumarModi. Age 64 Years.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Adjudicating Authority, Prohibition Of Benami PropertyTransactions Act, 1988 (The Benami ProhibitionAmendment Act, 2016), B Wing, 9Th Floor, Lok NayakBhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110003Transactions Act, 1988 (The Benami ProhibitionAmendment Act, 2016), B Wing, 9Th Floor, Lok NayakBhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110003
2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Bpu), Room No.103, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road,Jaipur Rajsthan 302005.103, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road,Jaipur Rajsthan 302005.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Pushkar Taimini. For Respondent(s): Mr. K.K. Bissa.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
03/01/2023
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on accountof subsequent developments, the petition have been renderedinfructuous.
In view of the submissions made, the petition is dismissed ashaving become infructuous.
The pending applications also stand disposed of.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue