Case LawHigh Court › Cwjc/5074/2012 Of Maa Chinmastika Enterp...

Cwjc/5074/2012 Of Maa Chinmastika Enterprises Pv v. Commessioner Of Income Tax -1 Patna

High Court 27 Mar 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Cwjc/5074/2012 Of Maa Chinmastika Enterprises Pv v. Commessioner Of Income Tax -1 Patna
Date of order
27 Mar 2012
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Cwjc/5074/2012 Of Maa Chinmastika Enterprises Pv v. Commessioner Of Income Tax -1 Patna, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.

Decision: Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

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 JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5074 of 2012 ====================================================== Maa Chinmastika Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., A Private Limited Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Office at 105, Om Apartment, Jamal Road, P.O. Jamal Road, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna through its Director, Vijay Gupta, Son of Shri Kapileshwar Prasad Gupta, Resident of Krishna Talkies Road, P.O. + P.S. Samastipur, District-Samastipur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1.Commessioner of Income Tax -1 Patna, having its Office at Central Revenue Building Beer Chand Patel Path, Patna 2.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Patna 3.Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (2), Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad with Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 27-03-2012 Learned advocate Mr. D.V. Pathy appears for the petitioner- assessee. He states that against the impugned order made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, the petitioner has preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Since the Appellate Tribunal is not in session, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. D. V. Pathy states that the petitioner shall pursue the remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw this petition. Leave is granted. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. BTiwary/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, 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