BOSCH LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/395/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01047111201216 June 2021Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the dispute had been amicably settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and that the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal on this basis. Placing this submission on record, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were to be formulated. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Bosch Limited, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal was against an order dated July 18, 2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 102(Bang)/2011, pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02. The respondents were the Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax. The appeal was listed for orders.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was to consider the substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order. The appellant sought to allow the appeal and set aside the ITAT's order to the extent questioned. The judgment does not explicitly state the specific substantial questions of law formulated by the appellant. The appellant's counsel informed the Court that the dispute had been amicably settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme, and sought leave to withdraw the appeal on this ground. The Revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.395 OF 2012 BETWEEN:

BOSCH LIMITED P.O. BOX NO.3000, HOSUR ROAD, ADUGODI, BANGALORE-560 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CFO MR. SOUMITRA BHATTACHARYA. ... APPELLANT (BY MISS MAHIMA GOUD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, JSS TOWERS, 100 FEET ROAD, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT JSS TOWERS, 100 FEET ROAD, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) - - -

2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18.07.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.102(BANG)/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.07.2012 IN ITA NO.102(BANG)/2011 (ANNEXURE-J) TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED THEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Miss Mahima Goud, learned counsel for the assessee. Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the dispute in this appeal has been amicably settled under the provisions of the “Vivad Se Vishwas’ scheme. The aforesaid submission is placed on record. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE HR

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 →