D.b. Special Appeal Writ v. Shri Hari Kishan Vijayvergia & Anr.),Decided Along With 168 Other Matters On 06.05.2011
High Court
14 Dec 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
D.b. Special Appeal Writ v. Shri Hari Kishan Vijayvergia & Anr.),Decided Along With 168 Other Matters On 06.05.2011
Date of order
14 Dec 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In D.b. Special Appeal Writ v. Shri Hari Kishan Vijayvergia & Anr.),Decided Along With 168 Other Matters On 06.05.2011, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the order passed in the said case andthe order impugned being interlocutory, whereas final orderhas been passed, the appeal is dismissed as having becomeinfructuous.
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 FOR RAJASTHANJAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT NO. 1443/2008INS.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4274/2008M/S. SHREE ANANT BUILDERS & DEVELOPERSVS.INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION & ANOTHER.
Date: 14.12.2011
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA'HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I
None present for the appellant.Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for the respondents.
It is submitted by Mr. Anuroop Singhi, counselappearing on behalf of the respondents that the appeal hasbeen preferred against the interlocutory order, whereas finalorder has already been dealt with by this Court in D.B. CivilSpecial Appeal(Writ) No. 989/2009(Commissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. Shri Hari Kishan Vijayvergia & Anr.),decided along with 168 other matters on 06.05.2011.
In view of the order passed in the said case andthe order impugned being interlocutory, whereas final orderhas been passed, the appeal is dismissed as having becomeinfructuous.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ.
Manoj
S.No. S.36.
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have beenincorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”
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