Case LawHigh Court › Wp/1365/2009 Of K.s. Vasu (Hindu) v. Inc...

Wp/1365/2009 Of K.s. Vasu (Hindu) v. Income-Tax Officer

High Court 30 Jan 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/1365/2009 Of K.s. Vasu (Hindu) v. Income-Tax Officer
Date of order
30 Jan 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp/1365/2009 Of K.s. Vasu (Hindu) v. Income-Tax Officer, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.

Decision: The petition stands disposed of as withdrawnwith no order as to costs. ________________________ ANIL R.

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 JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARYTWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENTTHE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICEand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 1365 of 2009 Between: K.S. Vasu (Hindu) S/o. K.S. Sridhar Residing at D.No.498, Reddy & Reddy Colony, Tirupati. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 Income-Tax Officer Ward-1(2), 22, Aayakar Bhavan, K.T. Road, Tirupati. 2 The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 22, Aayakar Bhavan, K.T. Road, Tirupati. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue any writ or direction, more particularly in the nature ofWrit of Certiorari and quash the proceedings of the 1st Respondentcovered by F.No.Appeal No.274/ITO-1(2)TPT/5-06, dt. 5-1-2009 asillegal, perverse, arbitrary, irrational, unilateral, unreasonablediscriminatory, devoid of juridiction and violative of the provisions ofIncome Tax Act and Rules framed there under. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.GOPALA KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In pursuance of a statement made on behalf of respondent No.1 thatwhatever document the petitioner files before the 1[st] respondent, theyshall be taken on file, the learned counsel for the petitioner seekspermission to withdraw the petition. Permission granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawnwith no order as to costs. ________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 30[th] January, 2009.GRR _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan