In Wp/20174/2004 Of G. Simhachalam v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In this view of the matter, following the same judgment, theimpugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION NO.20174 OF 2004Dated 27[th] September, 2007
Between:G.Simhachalam …Petitioner
ANDDeputy Commissioner of Income-TaxAnd two others …Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION NO.20174 OF 2004
O R D E R(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki):
It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that thecontroversy raised in this writ petition is covered by a judgment of thisCourt in W.P.No.20173 of 2004 and batch, dated 24-10-2006.
In this view of the matter, following the same judgment, theimpugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No orderas to costs.
___________________________
Bilal Nazki,J
Dated 27[th] September, 2007
____________________________
Ramesh Ranganathan,J
vrn
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