Wp/8530/2012 Of M/S Lakshminarayana Setty And Sons v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
25 Jul 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Wp/8530/2012 Of M/S Lakshminarayana Setty And Sons v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
25 Jul 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/8530/2012 Of M/S Lakshminarayana Setty And Sons v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREDATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
;WRIT PETITION No.8530 OF 2012 (TIT)
BETWEEN:
M/S. LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY AND SONSRBEPRBSEBENTBD BY PARTNER R. RAVISHANKAR»/O LATE B.L.RADHAKRISHNAAGED ABOUT 51 YBARSNO.24/7, MAIN ROADCHAMARAJPHTBANGALORE — 560018.... PHTITIONBER
(BY SRI R.RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FORM/S VASAN ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD-3(2)UNITY BUILDING ANNBXUREMISSION ROADBANGALORE.~_ RESPONDE
(BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, ADVOCATE)
WPIS|RITE ]UNDERARTICLE 2AY6OF.THECONSTITUTION|OF.INDIAPRAYINGTO|DIRBCTTHERESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THER PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAMADEON|15.09.2008VIDEANNE XUREAHORTHEASSEHKESSMENT YKAR 2009-10 AND DIRECT TO ISSUE REFOF THR SAMB TOGEHRTHEBR INTBREBESTS THR
WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘SBGROUP, THIs DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
Learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that the LRs of Balakrishna Setty may bepermitted to apply for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- (OneLakh) paid by mistake to the respondent on15.09.2008 as advance tax.
?)Learned counsel for the respondent fairlysubmits that liberty as sought for may be granted tothe petitioner and on an application by the LRs ofBalakrishna Setty, the claim for refund will beconsidered in accordance with law.
3.However, if the application 1S barred bylimitation, the concerned officer shall consider thesame in accordance with law by condoning the delayin the interest of justice.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/-JUDGE
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