Case LawHigh Court › M/S Raj Gonstruction, Station Road, Duig...

M/S Raj Gonstruction, Station Road, Duig(C.g v. Respondent

High Court 24 Aug 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
M/S Raj Gonstruction, Station Road, Duig(C.g v. Respondent
Date of order
24 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S Raj Gonstruction, Station Road, Duig(C.g v. Respondent, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ll,il!;'1 . <='? HIGHGOURTOFCHHATTiSGARHATBIl.ASPUR Division Behch , Goram:Hon'bleShnJagdish Bhalla,^eting C.J. &Hon'bleShriDilipRaosahebDeshmukh,,J, ReviewPetjtion Mo.53 of2007 Petitioner M/s Raj Gonstruction, Station Road,Duig(C.G.) versus Respondent Commissionerof Income Tax, Raipur Petition under Chapter VI Rule 75 of the Hiah Court ofChjiattisaarh Rules.2005 Present:Shrj Asllol<Patil, cpunselforthe petitioner.Slli'rAmjt^GhOudhary.Bounselfprtherespondent. OR&L0RDER(PasSed6ffi24thAugust,2007) TheN'owjngpralorderoftheGourtwasp^^:byHon'BleShriJagdishBhalla,ActingChiefJustice; Heard on I.A,No.2, an application for condonation of delay infilingthe Feviewpetition. Theground mentioned intheapplicationforcpndonationofdelay•::''•::':issufficient.. :1.' /::.:;: ::':"'^'\. Leamedcounselfcrtherespondentdoesnothayeanyobj'sctiionif the delay is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 is allowed ahdthe.delayinfilingthereview 'petition is condoned, Also heard on admission. ' S:.i1:1 Leamedcounselfbrthepetitionercoulclnotpointoutanyerrorapparenton the face of record.Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.sdA,.„_Sd/-OaipRaosahebDeshniukhActing Chief JusticeJudgeBIB;^,.1 sdA,.„_OaipRaosahebDeshniukhJudge iUISiliillSiiiir a»." ~~--<
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan