Case LawHigh Court › Ayushi Builders & Developers v. The Inco...

Ayushi Builders & Developers v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Jodhpur

High Court 10 Jul 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Ayushi Builders & Developers v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Jodhpur
Date of order
10 Jul 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Ayushi Builders & Developers v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Jodhpur, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is allowed, accordingly.

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 D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 122 / 2010 Ayushi Builders & Developers, 101, Babu Rajendra Marg, Masuria, Jodhpur ----Appellant Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Jodhpur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anjay Kothari, with Mr. Bhagirath PatelFor Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUROrder 10/07/2017 The issue involved in this appeal stands covered by a judgment of Calcutta High Court in Piu Ghosh Vs. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax (Income Tax Appeal No.191/2009decided on 12.07.2016). Accordingly, the issue involved inquestion No.1 is decided in favour of the appellant-assessee interms of the judgment referred above. In light of the finding arrived with regard to questionNo.1, the question No.2 remains only an academic question,therefore, that is not required to be answered. The appeal is allowed, accordingly. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR) J. (GOVIND MATHUR) J.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan