K.maniraja v. The Income Tax Officer,Business Ward β I(3)
High Court
18 Oct 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court Β· hc_cis_mas
Parties
K.maniraja v. The Income Tax Officer,Business Ward β I(3)
Date of order
18 Oct 2019
Assessment year(s)
β
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In K.maniraja v. The Income Tax Officer,Business Ward β I(3), the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below β read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order β as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.10.2019
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.No.30554 of 2013
K.Maniraja
...Petitioner
Vs
The Income Tax Officer,Business Ward β I(3),No.7, Ramakrishna Iyer Street,Shanmuga Road,West Tambaram,Chennai β 600 045. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to directthe respondent to grant one more assessment proceedings to thepetitioner for getting the income tax exemption amountpertaining to the petitioner's mother.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondent : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Kumar Junior Standing Counsel O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission ofthis Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and has also made anendorsement in this regard. Accordingly, the Writ Petition isthus dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
vs
ToThe Income Tax Officer,Business Ward β I(3),No.7, Ramakrishna Iyer Street,Shanmuga Road,West Tambaram,Chennai β 600 045.W.P.No.30554 of 2013rsi[co]srg 22/11/2019
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 β not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CAβclient 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.