In Wpms v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Tds, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned<br>counsel, appears for the respondent.<br>2.<br>Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that<br>the petitioner does not want to press the present writ<br>petition.<br>3.<br>Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as not<br>pressed.<br> <br> **( Rak esh Th apliy al, J...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
|**SL.**<br>**No**|**Date**|**Office Notes,**<br>**reports, orders**<br>**or proceedings**<br>**or directions and**<br>**Registrar’s order**<br>**with Signatures**|**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**|
|---|---|---|---|
||**04.01.2024**||WPMS No. 1880 of 2023<br>**Hon'ble Rak esh Th apliyal, J.**<br>1.<br>Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel, appears<br>for the petitioner and Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned<br>counsel, appears for the respondent.<br>2.<br>Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that<br>the petitioner does not want to press the present writ<br>petition.<br>3.<br>Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as not<br>pressed.<br> <br> **( Rak esh Th apliy al, J)**<br>04.01.2024<br>Rathour|
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.