Sky Blue Soft Tech Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director v. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 23 (4) New Delhi

,• I I .

• - I I • ^ . •/ ^ ^'

, \ * 1 ^ ^IGH COURT OF DELHI AT NE\V DELlH I '■•• vV W.P.fCU066^/2m^ > ; ^ .^ ■ .

W:P.(CV-l'lT54/2m^.\/- .r ,v SKY blue INFO TEGH PVT. ltd: X '

• '

■ , "

.

• --Petitioner .

'!

~ ■ _ 'Advocates. '

' • v, ; ' ■; : • ' X ^ ' Versus^'

:

INCO® TAX OFFICER, WAIU3,23'(^^^ NEWDELHI , , ^ .

; ■ ^ ^ ;■ V '-.--/RespohdeM^ .

, :

^ v'

. ;

, ■ ■ ^ Shivpuri, Advocates. V ^ ' .

'

■ /.

CORAM;, . .

'3- ■■ \

ORDER

''■" ■' ■-V '

■■.

■■ , .'

■■ 13.0L2D17 ■'

^ . . . After some hearing-, learned counsel, for, the petitioners sought liber^ to withdraw these; v^itpetitiohs.'^-^ lib^ td raise' all;

'

contentions on the mefits-'in>the reassessment proceedings. Liberty is ; . ' 'permitted.;.;

■ "U;.

" /■'

■;

x:, - .

, 'The writ petitions areaccordingly dismissed, as .withdrawn. - / \ / 'V S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

• V NAJMIWAZIRI, J.

JANUARY 13,2017 ■sb •;'

■ .

. L Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

I I,