Nafr v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Revenue Building, Circle 1 (2), Raipur
High Court
10 May 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Nafr v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Revenue Building, Circle 1 (2), Raipur
Date of order
10 May 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nafr v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Revenue Building, Circle 1 (2), Raipur, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: (3)Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
D/-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (T) No. 138 of 2014
M/s. Sunil Sponge Private Limited, a company duly registered under the Companies Act,1956 having its offices at Hounse No. 11, Jal Vihar Colony Raipur, 492001 (C.G.) andhaving its works at Plot No.96 and 97, Phase-II, Siltara, P.S. & P.O. Siltara, Raipur (C.G.)
Through its authorized signatory and Director, Anil Nachrani, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Nachrani,aged about 46 years, resident of PSM-4, Panchsheel Nagar, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Revenue Building, Circle 1 (2), Raipur-492001-492001
2. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines,Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) -492001Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) -492001
3. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur,District Raipur (CG) 492001.District Raipur (CG) 492001.
4. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Through the Secretary, North Block, New Delhi-110 001
---- Respondents
For Petitioner
: Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate.
Order On Board
10/05/2018
(1)Counsel for the petitioner pleads no instructions.
(2)In view of above, as the petitioner's counsel has no instructions from the petitioner, this
Court has no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution.
(3)Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K Agrawal)
Judge
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.