Case LawHigh Court › D.b. Civil Miscellaneous Application v....

D.b. Civil Miscellaneous Application v. Order

High Court 14 Jul 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
D.b. Civil Miscellaneous Application v. Order
Date of order
14 Jul 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In D.b. Civil Miscellaneous Application v. Order, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

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 BENCH ATJAIPUR 1. D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 371 / 2016The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota ----Petitioner Versus Smt. Manju Devi Modi, C/o, Agarwal Flooring Stone Company, Morak Station, Kota. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) :Mrs. Parinitoo Jain Adv. For Respondent(s) : _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K.RANKA 14/07/2017 Order Counsel for revenue submits that although there was batchof appeals which were dismissed by common order keeping inview the circular of CBDT dt.10.12.2015 but after the individualcases were examined, it revealed that the present appeals are notcovered by the circular on which reliance was placed whiledisposing of the batch of appeals. After taking note of the submissions made, in our view theapplicant deserve indulgence. Accordingly, the application stand allowed and the orderdt.29.01.2016 stands recalled and the appeal be restored to itsoriginal number. Let the appeal be listed before the concerned Bench holdingsubject roster. (J.K.RANKA),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. S.Kumawat, Jr. P.A.
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