Case Law › High Court › Wp/20824/2007 Of Pulimi Sailaja v. The D...

Wp/20824/2007 Of Pulimi Sailaja v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)

High Court 22 Oct 2007 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · taphc

Parties

Date of order

22 Oct 2007

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/20824/2007 Of Pulimi Sailaja v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: In this view of the matter,counsel for petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition,which is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKIAND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20824 of 2007 Date: 25-10-2007. Between : M/s.Pulimi Sailaja. …..Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-6(1), Hyderabad & others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKIANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION No.20824 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki) After hearing learned counsel for petitioner for awhile, we feel that at present there is no cause of actionavailable to the petitioner, as only a notice had been givento her, to which she had already replied and no ordershave been passed against her. In this view of the matter,counsel for petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition,which is accordingly dismissed. However, if any order ispassed against the petitioner hereinafter, she shall be atliberty to take any remedies that may be available to her inlaw. 25[th] October 2007. ______________ BILAL NAZKI, J __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, Jajr

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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.