Case Law › High Court › Rp/372/2018 Of Smt Kamakshi Devi v. The...

Rp/372/2018 Of Smt Kamakshi Devi v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Iii

High Court 10 Jan 2020 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · karnataka_bng_old

Parties

Date of order

10 Jan 2020

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Rp/372/2018 Of Smt Kamakshi Devi v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Iii, the High Court (2020) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence, review petition stands dismissed.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATBD THIS THER 1 DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ANT) THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL | R.P.NO.372/2018 IN WTA Nos.1 TO 3/2014 BETWEEN : SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI No.164, 9 MAIN ROADDERFBNCEK COLON BANGALORE — 560 O38. | _ PRHTITTIONER (BY SRI. BALARAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, III C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE -560001. «|THERE WHALIH TAX OFFICE WARD —- 7[2] BANGALORE-560001.~. RESPONDENTS THIS REBEVIBW PHRTITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER RULE I OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED30.08.2018 PASSED IN WTA Nos.1 TO 3/2014, ON THE FILE OF)THE H ON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,S. SUJATHA J©, MADE THE FOLLOWING: -9.- ORDER The petitioner has sought for review of the.judgment dated 30.8.2018 in WIA No.1/195 and allied matters. | On hearing the petitioner, we are of the.considered view that no error apparent on the face ofthe record is found to review the order as sought for. Hence, review petition stands dismissed. Dvr: Sd/-) JUDGE Sd/-|JUDGE

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.