Case Law › High Court › Lokmanya Wachanalaya Arvi, Dist. Wardha...

Lokmanya Wachanalaya Arvi, Dist. Wardha v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur

High Court 09 Dec 2010 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · testcase

Parties

Date of order

09 Dec 2010

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Allowed

Case summary

In Lokmanya Wachanalaya Arvi, Dist. Wardha v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

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 AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3681/2010 ( Lokmanya Wachanalaya Arvi, Dist. Wardha, through its Secretary ..Vs.. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's ordersappearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Adv. for petitioner. CORAM: V.C.DAGA & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ.DATE:DECEMBER 09, 2010. On the motion moved by the learned counsel for the petitioner, she is allowed to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to avail the alternate remedy as may be available in law. All the contentions are kept open. Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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.