Balwinder Singh Bagary v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
10 Jul 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Balwinder Singh Bagary v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
10 Jul 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Balwinder Singh Bagary v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed aswithdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDated this the 10[th ]day of July, 2017
Before |
THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI.Writ Petition No.60067 of 2016 (TIT)
Between
Balwinder Singh Bagary9/o Mr. Kirpal SinghAged about 47 yearsR/at. #21, Boscombe Road|singapore-439765
Correspondence Address:
M/s. Tefilah Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd,23/5, Rest House Crescent RoadBengaluru-9560 OO1.
_.. Petitioner
(By Mr. Sharath S, for
Mr. Chythanya K.K. Advocate) |
And
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation), Circle -1(1)BMTC Building, 80 Ft. Road&[th]Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.
... Respondent |
(By Mr. Dilip, for Mr. K.V. Aravind, Advocate)
KRREK
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 oft theConstitution of India, praying to quash as far as the petitioner is)concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of)
Date of Order 10-07-2017 W.P.No.60067/2016
Balwinder Singh Bagary Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
2/2
Certiorari or otherwise, the impugned order passed under Section|197(1) of the IT Act issuing direction to deduct tax at source at therate of 13.90% (excluding education cess/surcharge as applicable),|dated 19.05.2016 and the same is enclosed as Annexure-A & etc.,
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Mr. Sharath §,forMr. Chythanya K.K. |Advocatefor PetitionerMr. Dilip,forMr. K.V. Aravind,|Advocate for Respondent
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sharath 8,|
appearing for Mr. Chythanya K.K. wants to withdraw the writpetition. The opposite counsel has no objection.
2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed aswithdrawn.
BMV*~
Sd/-.
JUDGE.
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