Case LawHigh Court › Wp/636/2001 Of Sr.mgr.inchargefinancewag...

Wp/636/2001 Of Sr.mgr.inchargefinancewages,Bsp Andors v. Income Tax Officert.d.s. Bhilai Andors

High Court 01 May 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Wp/636/2001 Of Sr.mgr.inchargefinancewages,Bsp Andors v. Income Tax Officert.d.s. Bhilai Andors
Date of order
01 May 2006
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp/636/2001 Of Sr.mgr.inchargefinancewages,Bsp Andors v. Income Tax Officert.d.s. Bhilai Andors, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

Itf' HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR RESPONDENTS Present:Shri H.S. Shrivastava and Shri P. Diwaker, learned SeniorAdvocates with Shri Kunal Das, learned counsel for thepetitioners.Shri Amit Chowdary, learned standing counsei for therespondents ORAL ORDER (Passed on 01st May, 2006) Against the impugned order in this writ petition, an appeal tiesunder Section 246 A of the Income Tax Act.Having heard learnedcounse! for the parties,1 do not find any weighty or substantive reasonorextraordinarysituationthatcouldpersuademetoundertakeadjudication of the issue brought before the Court on merit. tn that viewof the matter, I dismiss the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitionersto work-out their remedies by way of the appeal.If such an appeal ispreferred within one month from today, the appellate authority shall hearand dispose of the appeal on merit, without referenceto the limitation.The appellate authority shall hear and dispose of the appeal as ireeave.ble1S,hatin I: -7' •° £^^ 'sST' —2. expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months fromthe date of presentation of the appeal. The interim order passed by thisCourt during the pendency of this writ petition shall be in operation tillthe appellate authority disposes ofthe appeal. (2)Learned senior counset appearing for the petitioners wouldrequest the Court to direct the Registry to return the copies of theimpugned orders.If an a^propriate application is made by thepetitioners, in that regard, the Registry is directed to retum thosedocumentsforthwith. Nocosts. Sd/- ChiefJustice 1 ( ireWibliisaat:IDR/'
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan