Case Law › High Court › Nishar Ahmed v. Income Tax Officer, Ito...

Nishar Ahmed v. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward

High Court 12 Dec 2023 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · rhcjodh240618

Parties

Date of order

12 Dec 2023

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Nishar Ahmed v. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence, this writ petition is dismissed as having becomeinfructuous.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17741/2022 Nishar Ahmed S/o Shri Komerudeen, Aged About 36 Years, IndraColony, Bilara, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342602 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward -1, Aayakar Bhawan, PaotaC Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) 311001C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) 311001 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income TaxDepartment, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur(Rajasthan) - 302005Department, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur(Rajasthan) - 302005 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Chairperson,Type-7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi -110021Type-7, Bungalow No. 75, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi -110021 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Falgun Buch For Respondent(s): Mr. K. K. Bissa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Judgment / Order 12/12/2023 Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that sinceassessment order has already been passed, this writ petition hasrendered infructuous. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed as having becomeinfructuous. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 64-DivyaTak/- (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

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.