ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Manav Jain v. Income Tax Officer and Another
Writ Tax No. 206 of 2018 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Writ dismissed as not pressed after counsel stated that the relief sought had already been granted.
Division Bench · Bharati Sapru · Neeraj Tiwari
1. Facts of the case
Shri Suyash Agrawal, counsel for petitioner Manav Jain, stated that the relief sought in the petition had already been granted and that he did not wish to press it. The order does not identify the relief, assessment year, amount or underlying statutory dispute.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court recorded counsel’s statement and concluded the proceeding accordingly. It did not independently analyse the tax controversy or reproduce the separate action said to have granted relief.
3. Judicial decision
The writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The writ ended without a merits ruling. The assertion that relief had already been granted is attributed to counsel; this order does not itself grant or quantify tax relief.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Do not turn counsel’s report of prior relief into a judicial finding about a particular assessment, refund or exemption. The underlying relief and any implementation must be checked against the relevant separate record.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page order read and visually inspected. Original SHA-256 independently reverified; full source text matched the supplied merged-page record. No assessment year or PAN is stated. No later proceedings or current-law clearance is represented.
Source SHA-256: d78edb0feada272bec73bbf9c763194827a9350638680edb5b840f0e70c4e4ad
Only provisions expressly identified in this order are recorded. No substantive tax merits or current statutory equivalence is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-18. Later proceedings, compliance and current precedential treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.