Rp/100125/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Chikodi Taluka Shree Saraswati
High Court
22 Jan 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karhcdharwad
Parties
Rp/100125/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Chikodi Taluka Shree Saraswati
Date of order
22 Jan 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Rp/100125/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Chikodi Taluka Shree Saraswati, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA|DHARWAD BRENCH
DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA|
AN 1
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
R.P.No.100125/2017
BETWEEN :
1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BELAGAVIL.
2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,NIPPANT,KARNATAKA._.. PRHTITIONE
(BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.)
AND:CHIKODI TALUKA SHRBEB SARASWATISQUHARDA CO-OPBRATIVECREDIT LIMITED,AT POST:BEDKIHAL, TQO:CHIKODI,BELAGAVI-591 201.)_. RESPONDENT
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF)CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2019.PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN ITA No.100095/2014, ON.THE FILE OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,|DHARWAD BRNCH AT DHARWAD.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,|S.SUJATHA J..MADEB THR FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In view of the order passed by this Court in R.P.No.100117/2017 dated 22.01.2018, this review petitiondeserves to be dismissed.
?)It is significant to note that this appeal is
filed with an inordinate delay of 6092 days. No)satisfactory reasons are assigned to condone the delay. —Hence, I.A. seeking condonation of delay has to berejected. |
3.Accordingly, review petition as well as I.A.No.1/2017 stands dismissed in terms of the order ofthis Court in R.P. No.100117/2017.
Sd/-JUDGE|
Jm/-
Sd/-|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.
EaseValue