SRI. SIDDHI SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/138/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01006123202117 August 2021Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the memo for withdrawal filed by the appellant. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left open. The Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the appellant to revive the appeal if the need arises. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be raised.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sri. Siddhi Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The appeal was against an order passed in ITA No. 2460/Bang/2019 for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore. The appellant sought to formulate and answer substantial questions of law in its favour. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the substantial questions of law, as stated in the appeal, should be formulated and answered in favour of the appellant. The appellant sought to present these questions for determination by the High Court. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by either the appellant or the revenue regarding the substantive merits of the case. Instead, it notes a memo for withdrawal filed by the appellant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ITA NO.138 OF 2021 BETWEEN:

SRI. SIDDHI SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI. T. MAHESHA, NO.137, 1ST FLOOR, CQAL LAYOUT, 60 FT. ROAD, OPP UCO BANK, SAHAKARNAGAR, BANGALORE-560092.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(2), BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

…RESPONDENT

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2020 PASSED IN ITA NO.2460/BANG/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 PRAYING THIS HON`BLE COURT TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS

STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The memo for withdrawal is accepted. Questions of law are left open.

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Liberty is granted to the appellant to revive the appeal in case need arises.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

sma

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →