In Wp/5304/2022 Of V.banumathy v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
W.P.No.5304 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Today, the matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned”.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 6[th] line of the paragraph 6 of the order, the time period has wrongly been mentioned as two months instead of five months and in the 8[th] line of paragraph 6 the date has wrongly been mentioned as 24.03.2022 instead of 31.03.2022.
Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections and issue a fresh order copy to the parties.
24.03.2022(1/2)
Psa
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