Mcc/206/2013 Of Income Tax Officer Jagdalpur v. Surendra Kumar Kataria
High Court
29 Apr 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Mcc/206/2013 Of Income Tax Officer Jagdalpur v. Surendra Kumar Kataria
Date of order
29 Apr 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mcc/206/2013 Of Income Tax Officer Jagdalpur v. Surendra Kumar Kataria, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
J ’ OC ( ( f
I NT H EH I G HC O U R TO FJ U D I C A T U R EA TB I L A S P U R
M . c . c .N o ,. 3 C / /é .2 6’[5 ’] m'-''U l v u s l o nB a n c h
:T a xO f f i c e rJ a g d a l p u r ' ,( , I n c o m e
“ g P L I C A N T -
V s
'
'
”O N - A P P L I C A N T:/ 5 u r e n d r ak u m a rK m ‘ a r ' i a ;[( P m]7 5 w )1 Vm / sg a m vT W , M ¢ L L Am a d )K ¢ s h l c— 3 aA P P L I C A T O I N, 3 } .f a g /3 . 5 2F O RR E S T O R A T I O N9 & 7O FI T AN o . 2 O / 2 o oL L ”N a b I s M I s s E bA sB A R R E DB yL I M I T A T E DV I p EO R D E R®K R4 ; “D A T E D1 6 . 6 . 2 0 0 9P A S S E DB VT H EH O N ' B L ED I V I S I O N\ E i i y ;BN C HH O N ' B L EM R .D H I R E N D R AM I s H R A&H O N ' B L E‘ 3 ‘J U S T I C ER . N .C H A N D R A K A R )@ é ‘ g v O M R .
h .
H I G H C O U R T O F C H H A T T I S G A R H ,B I L A S P U R
D . B . :H O N ’ B L EM R .S U N I L K U M A RS I N H A &H O N ’ B L EM R .R A N G N A T HC H A N D R A K A R ,J J .
M . C . C .N O .2 0 6 / 2 0 1 3
I n c o m e T a xO f f i c e r , J a g d a l p u r .
A P P L I C A N T
V e r s u s
K a t a r i a .
S u r e n d r a K u m a r
R E S P O N D E N T S
A P P L I C A T I O NF O RR E S T O R A T I O N
A p p e a r a n c e :
f o r t h e A p p l i c a n t .
M r . A n a n dD a d a r i y a , A d v o c a t e
O R D E R( 2 9 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 3 )
H e a r d .
M r .A n a n dD a d a r i y a ,I e a r n e dc o u n s e lf o r t h eA p p l i c a n t ,m a k e ss t a t e m e n tt h a ti n a d v e r t e n t l yi n s t e a do ff i l i n gar e v i e wp e t i t i o n ,t h ea p p l i c a n th a sf i l e dM C Cm a k i n gp r a y e rf o rr e s t o r a t i o no ft h eo r i g i n a lI n c o m eT e x tA p p e a l( I T A ) ,t h e r e f o r e ,t h i s M C Cm a yb ep e r m i t t e dt o b ew i t h d r a w na st h ea p p l i c a n t w o u l df i l e ad u l yc o n s t i t u t e dr e v i e w
p e t i t i o n .
M . C . C .N o .2 0 6 / 2 0 1 3f o rr e s t o r a t i o n ,t h e r e f o r e ,i s d i s p o s e do f a sw i t h d r a w n .
r ,.7
S d l -R a n g n a t hC h a n d r a k a rJ u d g e
S d / -S u n i l K u m a rS i n h aJ u d g e
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.