ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Ghaziabad Development Authority through Finance Controller v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad
Writ Tax No. 880 of 2009 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Writ petition dismissed as not pressed at petitioner counsel’s request; no tax merits adjudicated.
Division Bench · Bharati Sapru · Dinesh Kumar Singh
1. Facts of the case
Shri Nikhil Agrawal, counsel for Ghaziabad Development Authority, stated that the petitioner did not want to press the petition. The respondent is the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad. No assessment year, PAN or underlying demand is stated.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court disposed of the petition on counsel’s statement. The supplied one-page order contains no analysis of the tax dispute, TDS liability or validity of the impugned action.
3. Judicial decision
Writ Tax No. 880 of 2009 was dismissed as not pressed.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The petitioner’s writ proceeding ended without adjudication of substantive tax merits. No express liberty to file afresh, refund direction or continuing interim protection is recorded.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Do not infer a TDS liability ruling from the respondent’s designation or a special-audit ruling from other cases involving the same authority. This is only the 3 August 2018 not-pressed disposal in Writ Tax 880/2009. Any further remedy or later proceeding requires separate source verification.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page order read and visually inspected. Exact original SHA-256 and complete extracted text matched the reviewed source packet. No assessment year, PAN or underlying assessment issue is stated. Later proceedings and current law have not been cleared.
Source SHA-256: 418a83aafa9743002530f60c0362d9ba5f7730c05fbe38caff028ec983b26311
Only provisions expressly identified in this order are recorded. No substantive tax merits or current statutory equivalence is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-19. 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.