Forum / Bench
High Court · asghccis
Parties
Salary Of The Petitioner In View Of Provisions Of Section 10(26) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) And The Decision Of This Court In Pradip Kr. Taye And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors., 2010(2) Glr 367
Date of order
30 Nov 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
In Salary Of The Petitioner In View Of Provisions Of Section 10(26) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) And The Decision Of This Court In Pradip Kr. Taye And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors., 2010(2) Glr 367, the High Court (2012) decided the matter under Section 10, Section 197 of the Income-tax Act.
Decision: The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
WP(C) 5551/2012
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K. GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
(A.K.Goel, CJ.)
This petition seeks a direction against deduction of income tax from the
salary of the petitioner in view of provisions of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the decision of this Court in Pradip Kr. Taye and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors., 2010(2) GLR 367.
According to the petitioner, a representation dated 23.10.2012 has been submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Tinsukia praying for issuance of a tax exemption certificate under Section 197(1) of the Act but no decision was being taken thereon.
Without expressing any opinion on merit, we direct Respondent No.7 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
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.