Wp/5495/2006 Of T.purushothama Rao v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vi
High Court
17 Apr 2006 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/5495/2006 Of T.purushothama Rao v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vi
Date of order
17 Apr 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/5495/2006 Of T.purushothama Rao v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vi, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In this view of the matter, we think that no further orders are necessary to be passedin 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
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO.5495 OF 2006
Date: 17-04-2006
Between:
T.Purushothama Rao … Petitioner
And
The Commissioner of Income-Tax VI
And another … Respondents
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO.5495 OF 2006
O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Bilal Nazki, J):
It is submitted by Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Advocate, that the grievance of thepetitioner has now been accepted by the Department and he assures that the orderswill be issued immediately. A counter-affidavit sworn by the Commissioner ofIncome-Tax on 7[th] April, 2006 has been filed now, which gives the correct position.
In this view of the matter, we think that no further orders are necessary to be passedin the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
_____________________
(Bilal Nazki, J)
Dated 17[th] April, 2006
_____________________
(G.Chandraiah, 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