Maniklal Bhattacharya v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
23 Nov 2012 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Maniklal Bhattacharya v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
23 Nov 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Maniklal Bhattacharya v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 3-Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawnwith aforesaid liberty.— Sd/-G.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
^:.X-\;^^^^^V'-:--TL'c' -^ - (^/JHE_H_Qh['BLE_HLGH^OURTOFJUDICATUREFOR CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURTax Case No.2-of 2012Appellant^Maniklal BhattacharyaAssessee'^^^-H.No. 19/20 4th FloorDhebar Tower, Byron Bazar.^..••^s^:^^--"Raipur (C.G.)Versus^y^',...••"•'"RespondentIncome Tax Officer,Circie2(4)Raipur(C.G.)iViemo of Appeal under section 26Q^Aof the Income Tax;^')Act1961
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DB: HON'BLEMR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE &HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ.
Tax Case No.02 of 2012
Appellant
Maniklal Bhattacharya
Respondent
Versus
Income Tax Officer
Present: Shri Neelabh Dubey, counsel for the appellant.Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the respondent.
O R D ER
(Passed on 23rd November, 2012)
Thefollowingorderofpassedby Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
orderoftheCourtwas
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that hedoes not wishto prosecute thisappeal and $eekstowithdraw this appeal with liberty to take recourse to anyother remedy that may be available to him.
2.We accept the above submission made by learnedcounsel for the appellant.
3-Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawnwith aforesaid liberty.—
Sd/-G. MinhajuddinJudge
Sd/-Abhay Manohar SapreJudge
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.