Writ petition seeking declaration that a provision of the Income Tax Act was unconstitutional was withdrawn by the petitioner as nothing survived with the passage of time; the court dismissed it without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.8793 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.8793 of 2010
R.Sethu Subramanian .. Petitioner
Versus
1/4
W.P.No.8793 of 2010
.. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Declaration declaring Section 17(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as ultra vires and unconstitutional.
For Petitioner : Ms.K.Ashwarya, for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam and Associates
For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh, for RR-1 to 3 and 5
: Mr.V.Ramaswamy, for R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court is made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that with
the passage of time, nothing survives in the Writ Petition and seeks leave to withdraw the Writ Petition.
order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (J.S.N.P., J.)
2/4
W.P.No.8793 of 2010
Index
Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no grs
01.04.2024
To
3/4
W.P.No.8793 of 2010
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
grs
W.P.No.8793 of 2010
01.04.2024
4/4
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Sethu Subramanian
The Secretary, Ministry of Finance
The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice
ITC Limited
Income Tax Officer, ITO, SAL WD I(1)
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala
J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
