ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Praveen Kumar Agrawal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another
Writ Tax No. 282 of 2019 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
The writ petition was dismissed in accordance with the withdrawal request.
Division Bench · Surya Prakash Kesarwani · Surendra Singh-I
1. Facts of the case
Counsel holding brief for petitioner counsel requested that the writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court accepted the procedural request; no reason for withdrawal or tax issue was adjudicated in the supplied order.
3. Judicial decision
The writ petition was dismissed in accordance with the withdrawal request.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The proceeding ended by withdrawal without substantive tax relief.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
The printed decision date is 17 August 2022 despite a different date in the source filename. The later signature date is not the disposal date. No assessment year, statutory issue or liberty to refile is stated.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page original read and visually inspected; original PDF bytes verified by SHA-256. Only source-identified provisions and assessment years are recorded. No PAN is stated. Subsequent treatment and current law have not been cleared.
Source SHA-256: e5165ccc8396f2ff573a54d3babbfc06a7126a113a2c0a68be23c69fe79659a5
Only source-identified provisions are recorded. No current monetary threshold, current statutory equivalence or 2025 Act applicability is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-20. Subsequent proceedings 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.