Case Law › High Court › Rp/100168/2014 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Rp/100168/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Rajesaheb S Bhagawan

High Court 01 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · karhcdharwad

Parties

Date of order

01 Feb 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Rp/100168/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Rajesaheb S Bhagawan, the High Court (2016) 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 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA R.P. NO. 100168/2014%IN W.P. NO. 105410/2014 (TIT) BETWEEN' 1.THE COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX,OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL,DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,BELGAUM. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, BAGALKOT. (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) %PETITIONERS AND' SHRI. RAJESAHEB S. BHAGAWAN, A/P: BISANAL, SO: GALAGALI, TQ: BILAGI, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. %RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2014PASSED IN W.P. NO. 105410/2014 ON THE FILE OF HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH & ETC, THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THISDAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: �� -././01-23��40513-6�783�9/6-:�8�;-;0�3--</1= >-2;/33/01�.0�?/.7:28?�.7-�2-@/-?�>-././01� �-;0�/3�.8<-1�01�2-402:��-@/-?�>-././01�/3 :/3;/33-:�83�?/.7:28?1� 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.