Dr.geethalakshmi v. Mr.t.pramod Kumar Chopda
High Court
11 Apr 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Dr.geethalakshmi v. Mr.t.pramod Kumar Chopda
Date of order
11 Apr 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Dr.geethalakshmi v. Mr.t.pramod Kumar Chopda, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.04.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P.No.8817 OF 2017ANDW.M.P No.9670 OF 2017
Dr.Geethalakshmi
[ PETITIONER ]
Vs
The Deputy Director of Income Tax(INV),Unit II (I) Chennai,Income Tax Office,108, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai 600 034.[ RESPONDENT]
-Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent's summons issued under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated07.04.2017 to the petitioner.
For Petitioner: Mr.Gomathi Nayagam for Mr.G.Harihara Arun Somashankar
For Respondents: Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda Standing Counsel (I.T.)
: Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.vri
ORDER
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
11.04.2017
Speaking/Non SpeakingIndex : Yes / No
vri
To
The Deputy Director of Income Tax(INV),Unit II (I) Chennai,Income Tax Office,108, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai 600 034.
W.P.No.8817 of 2017
http://www.judis.nic.in
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.