Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenuebuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj v. Shri Laxman Nainani, M/S. Nainani Medico, Rampura, Kota
High Court
18 Sep 2025 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenuebuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj v. Shri Laxman Nainani, M/S. Nainani Medico, Rampura, Kota
Date of order
18 Sep 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenuebuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj v. Shri Laxman Nainani, M/S. Nainani Medico, Rampura, Kota, the High Court (2025) allowed the appeal under Section 5 of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 1166/2024
in
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.98/2020
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, New Central RevenueBuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Laxman Nainani, M/s. Nainani Medico, Rampura, Kota.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Meyhul Mittal with
Ms. Tanushka Saxena for Mr. Siddharth Bapna
For Respondent(s):
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHITOrder
18/09/2025
The Application No.2396/2024 filed under Section 5 of theLimitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the restorationapplication, is allowed for the grounds & reasons mentionedtherein. Delay in filing the restoration application, is condoned.
Heard on restoration application.
For the reasons and grounds mentioned in the restorationapplication, the same is allowed. D.B. Income Tax AppealNo.98/2020, is restored to its original number.
Office to proceed further.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SAHIL SONI /49
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.