Wp/18724/2023 Of Raghu N.s v. Assistant /Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle -1(4)
High Court
12 Oct 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Wp/18724/2023 Of Raghu N.s v. Assistant /Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle -1(4)
Date of order
12 Oct 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/18724/2023 Of Raghu N.s v. Assistant /Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle -1(4), the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The learned counsel is permitted and on perusal of the memo, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Digitallysigned byNARASIMHAMURTHYVANAMALALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
-WRIT PETITION NO. 18724 OF 2023 (TIT)
BETWEEN:
RAGHU N.S. S/O SHIVANNA N AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NANDIKALKERE
MUTTUGADAHALLI POST
MAYASANDRA HOBLI
TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKURU 572221.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ASSISTANT /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560001. OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)
UNIT 3(1) BLR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUSHIL TIWARI., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. ITBA/ASK/F/73/2023-24/1054929878(1) DATED 08/08/2023 BY R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS BEING ARBITRARY, VOID, ILLEGAL. B) CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY DIRECTION TO THE R1 AND R2 AUTHORITY TO RELEASE AND RETURN THE SEIZED ORIGINAL SALE DEEDS TO THE PETITIONER WITHIN 7 DAYS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri A. Mahesh Chowdary, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, seeks leave to place on record a memo with a request for dismissal of the petition as withdrawn.
The learned counsel is permitted and on perusal of the memo, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/- JUDGE
SA ct:sr
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.
EaseValue