ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority through G.C. Agrawal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Writ Tax No. 601 of 2017 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
NOIDA writ dismissed as infructuous by efflux of time on petitioner counsel’s statement.
Division Bench · Bharati Sapru · Piyush Agrawal
1. Facts of the case
In Writ Tax No. 601 of 2017, counsel for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority stated that the petition had become infructuous by efflux of time. The caption identifies the Authority through G.C. Agrawal. The underlying tax issue, assessment year and time-dependent event are not stated.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Hon’ble Court accepted counsel’s statement and dismissed the petition as infructuous. It did not analyse tax liability, statutory exemption, TDS treatment or any contested legal question.
3. Judicial decision
Writ Tax No. 601 of 2017 was dismissed as having become infructuous.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The Authority’s petition ended procedurally. The order grants no quantified tax relief, refund or express fresh-petition liberty and contains no substantive ruling in favour of either side.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Keep Writ Tax 600/2017 and 601/2017 distinct: the same date and wording do not overcome their different dockets, representative captions and source hashes. Neither is a duplicate of the Supreme Court’s 2 July 2018 NOIDA decisions. Do not infer that those decisions caused this disposal; the supplied order does not say so. The effect of later proceedings requires independent checking.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page order read and visually inspected. Exact original SHA-256, byte count and complete extracted text matched the reviewed source packet. Assessment year and PAN are not stated. Later proceedings and current law have not been cleared.
Source SHA-256: 891019770e4778a2d368fcfaffc7ca4edf10282c09a98f9149463ca91ed22acc
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.