Ivi.c.c v. Respondent S.jagdish Singh
High Court
05 Jan 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Ivi.c.c v. Respondent S.jagdish Singh
Date of order
05 Jan 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Ivi.c.c v. Respondent S.jagdish Singh, the High Court (2015) 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
:^§1
'•X3-
^t
IN THE HIGH G^tlKOSyilDIG'A^t^AT^1^^©HH^I-TISIG^RH ».. \
».. \. \ \^5^8-3-t^lA^3•)-«^,
'M.e.e.;
APPELLAN:^e^-^sip"'—'^^!-RESPONDENT
^<-66nunissioneroflncometax,'. ;: •• l'/':| ..,•.'.• 'Raipur.
S.JagdishSmghProp.SuperSupersteel Raipur. (^i^,?^y^,'s-
i^i^MiiUliil®ii^^:(c?(Mflij^sji|n||||n^^|j^jtii,^|j^aist^|ia^.,^^^^•CTBi6;i|W9i»i ii ;SiMDATED:?;lS.l^:I^S§SE]|?^^BEEMi^S]X3 BEPiE^^HONB]^ A^TBSG g'HlEF^USTlC'E SHSI. .L^DI§] BHAIJjA.ANBHON'SEET.P.SHARMA
^
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Coram: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA &HON'BLE MR.I.S.UBOWEJA, JJ.
IVI.C.C. No.491 of2013ApplicantCommissionerofIncomeTax,RaipurVersus
RespondentS.Jagdish Singh
(Application for restoration of I.T.A.No.60 of2003)
Mr.Anand Daid(iyasepj.iBsel|foBhesaiR!pli£^i1t.s
ORDER'.^".^.((5-1-2015)
1. Head on restoration application.2. Vide order dated 16.1.200grl:T;A.NQ.60 of 2003 has been dismissed fornon-prosecution by Division BenchiNo.1.3. On due consideration, restoratiQrT^application is allowed. I.T.A.No.60 of
2003 dismissed for non-'preseeytion vide order dated 16.1.2008 is restoredto its original number. No ordeE.as la costs.r^l_^/——Sd/-Sd/-T.P.SharmaInderSinghUbowqaJudgeJudge
€
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