Wp/18626/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad v. The Income Tax, Chennai And Another
High Court
05 Jan 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/18626/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad v. The Income Tax, Chennai And Another
Date of order
05 Jan 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/18626/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad v. The Income Tax, Chennai And Another, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION NO: 18626 OF 2008
Between:The Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Central) AayakarBhavan, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND1, The lncome Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, 640, Anna Salai,Nandanam, Chennai.1, The lncome Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, 640, Anna Salai,Nandanam, Chennai.
2. M. Venkata Rao, 9-1944, CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh...RESPONDENTS...RESPONDENTS
Petition under [A'rticle ]226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may becircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order ordirection in the nature of a Writ declaring the order of the Settlement Commissiondirection in the nature of a Writ declaring the order of the Settlement Commission(|T&WT), Adilabad Bench, Chennai in SA No. AP/HD51/06-07/9/lTdated 18-3-2008 as highly illegal, improper. arbitrary, unjust, violative of thedated 18-3-2008 as highly illegal, improper. arbitrary, unjust, violative of theprinciples of natural justice and to set aside the same.
LA. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO:24217 OF 2008)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the order of the Settlement Commission (|T&WT), Adilabad Bench,Chennai in SA No. AP/HDs1/06-07/9/lT dated 18-3-2008, [pending ]disposal of theWrit Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AJAY KULKARNI J.V.
(sc FoR lNcoME TAX)
counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A. PRABHAVATHIThe Court made the following: ORDER
I
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANAND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.18626 of 2OO8
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice ujjal Bhugan)
Heard Mr. Aj ay Kulkarni, learned counsel representingMr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income TaxDepartment for the petitioner and Ms. A.Prabhavati, learnedcounsel for respondent No.2.
2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the orderdated 18.O3.2O08 passed by the Settlement Commission.Commissioner of lncome Tax is the petitioner in this writpetition.
3. Similar challenge made by the Revenue inW.P.No.18627 of 20OB [g,as ]dismissed on 03.01.2023.
4 . Following the aforesaid order, the present WritPetition is also dismissed. However, there sha-Il be no orderas to costs.
2
HCJ & NTRJW.P.No.18626 of 2OO8
5. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
arry, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/-B, CHANDRA PRAKASHASSISTANT REGISTRARqeSECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPYi/
To,
1. one CC to SRI J.V PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX)
2. One CC to SRI A PRABHAVATHI, Advocate
3. Two CD Copies
BBI]S
BSR
t,
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0510112023
ORDERSTrs11rEW.P.No.18626 of 2008rts .bC)o['lt*DE5PA1
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS
bz96s(
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.