Case Law › High Court › Wp/5596/2023 Of Veerendra Kumar Pathak v...

Wp/5596/2023 Of Veerendra Kumar Pathak v. Income Tax Officer

High Court 12 Jun 2023 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · mphc_db_jbp

Parties

Date of order

12 Jun 2023

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp/5596/2023 Of Veerendra Kumar Pathak v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRAON THE 12[th] OF JUNE, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 5596 of 2023 BETWEEN:- VEERENDRA KUMAR PATHAK S/O SHRI RAM KUMARPATHAK, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS, R/O LALA BAHADUR SHASTRI WARD NO. 2,KUTHLA, KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI NISHANT KESHARWANI - ADVOCATE) .....PETITIONER AND 1.INCOME TAX OFFICER OFFICE OF INCOME TAXOFFICER WARD I KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH) 2.PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MP AND CG DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH) 3.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,J AB ALPUR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 4.UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OFREVENUE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI (DELHI) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3AND SHRI SANDEEP SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following: sj ORDER At request of petitioner's counsel, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed off. (RAVI MALIMATH)CHIEF JUSTICE (VISHAL MISHRA)JUDGE

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.