High Court Karnataka High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax-V vs D Edwin Prabhakar S/O Devasahayam on 10 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax-V vs D Edwin Prabhakar S/O Devasahayam on 10 June, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna


1

IN was axen Cocky or KARNATAKA am #Aaa3LéRn _’.

namzn THIS was 1c”fmmy~n$ jugs; ae§ai:”
PRESfifiw: V ‘ A x ‘E
THE KQN’B£E MR. §fiS$ICE fi%L: fi®fi$fiNBEfi
‘sax H024″ BLEV _ memawmm
BE’1’WEEN2
camxs§;§§e¥”$£.ifi$¢§e«%a§+v}

Bafigalbrfig V” ‘*a’ . APPELLANT
113$_Advfid$ta°s$i;$;VzArvind for
, .Sxi.fi V Seshachala)
RN93» ‘

1}Vn5aduin P£ébhakar 5/a
Devaaahayam, 5? years,

‘ -f~ jkgtdfi gm? r n¢.a12o/223)

‘*2/o a@,3-22 (631), nan Flats,
W_Ag3tin’Tawn Layaut,
Sahgaloxe-47.

v_Aincdmew§ax paw Hc.AaApE4445M,

~ “E; Thé General Manager,
‘._flM/s Hindustan Machine foals Ltd.,

EMT Post, Bangalore-560 G31. .. RES?GNENTS

{Advacate Sri.G.Skumaran & Agata. far R-1)

2

This WA. is filed under that”
Karnataka High Court: Act to set .. the’–_or_d.aé=rs

passed in we N’o.4G28f200’I dai£éd’–3.7_’.2GC¥7′.” V V

This Appeal is i’-exit £45513.”
hearing this day, J’, the
following: –_ ‘ . W

{J U 14′-32:’

…’.;.;__9.,_;;____

After hearing», that the
learned of w..r.>.4o2a/zoo?
relying Q in we :~zo.2s44′:/zoos
order has not been
court, this court cannot

find _£au.1″t xi-ritlha t*he'”:allowing of writ petition by

sihgievaudge. Therefore, we do not see

‘ahj’,r= =ixater1:”ere with the order passed by the

1a?.e’:i:*x’zet1« Judge. At this stage, counsel for

‘V the’ contends that Levying of costs of

4′:«.V:R=;v;t:1,§),i.§’G0/- is as: higher side and. cenaidering the

.’ faéite and circumstazmes of this case, he submits

it ” “that costs should not have been levied by the

learned. single Judge .

(7,

3

2 . We have perused the order ha1z:ri:éag–

regard to the facts of the.-~~<:.as;e,7_" wag cif Hizhé?'

opinion that J. of costs £21: afi5pé.i.1a:1t' Vqnot
3/9"? V. VA
wuL.~_( arwkti '

aeqmuuflh- In the cir '3pancag,.wé héreby waive

the <::.-its levied by the 3;%i§’lG’~.§¥1dgé$’.

2. In the disznissed with
an observat;q§’tha§ igggigé fig édgés of R5.10,000/-
is hez’eb3(_ ” disntissal of the
writ direct the appellant
ta pitgxce.-e$AV TVLV’-%”;Ixa_: ‘filed by the zraspcandexat…

assesse e._v}iMth’i.ia Va’ of 4 weeks from ten-day.

.,_ U» <1"

%>,..§’Lé_

Egigg

; gggw

i??%:+§§%

3110608