M/S NOVO NORDISK INDIA PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/566/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01036143201511 January 2021Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee, who requested permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to contest a specific substantial question of law ('O') in subsequent years. The learned counsel for the revenue did not oppose this prayer. In light of the non-opposition from the revenue, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the assessee liberty to contest the substantial question of law 'O' in subsequent assessment years, as prayed. No decision was made on the merits of any substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd., 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 May 8, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in IT(TP)A No. 122/Bang/2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The revenue was represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12(2), Bangalore. The assessee sought to set aside the ITAT's order to the extent challenged in the present appeal and quash any proceedings pursuant to its directions. The appeal was listed for hearing on January 11, 2021.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the High Court should admit the appeal to answer substantial questions of law framed by the assessee. The assessee, through its counsel, made a submission at the outset of the hearing. The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal. This request was made with the liberty to contest the substantial question of law numbered 'O' in subsequent assessment years. The revenue, through its counsel, did not oppose this prayer. No specific substantial questions of law were detailed in the provided text, nor were the arguments of either side elaborated beyond the assessee's request to withdraw.

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 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.566 OF 2015 BETWEEN: M/S. NOVO NORDISK INDIA PVT. LTD., ( A PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) HAVING ITS OFFICES AT: PLOT NO.32 47-50, EPIP AREA, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE. .... APPELLANT (BY MR. NAGESHWAR RAO, ADV.,) AND: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(2), [PRESENTLY CIRCLE5(1)(1)] BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. DILIP KUMAR, ADV., MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08.05.2015 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.122/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ANNEXURE-A PRAYING TO: (i) ADMIT THE INSTANT APPEAL TO ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW SET OUT IN PARA 36 ABOVE. (ii) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE ITAT IN IT(TP)A NO.122/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ANNEXURE-A, TO THE EXTENT

2 CHALLENGED IN PRESENT APPEAL, AND QUASH ANY PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED OR CONTEMPLATED PURSUANT TO SUCH DIRECTIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER & ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee be permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to contest the substantial question of law No.O in subsequent years. 2. The aforesaid prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV

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 →