IBM INDIA PVT LTD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/839/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01051954201812 December 2019Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court placed the said memo on record. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also consigned to records. The judgment does not provide any reasoning on the merits of the original appeal or the miscellaneous petition that was dismissed by the ITAT. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appellant, IBM India Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenged an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which dismissed the appellant's Miscellaneous Petition (M.P. No. 20/BANG/2018) in IT (TP) A No. 1461/BANG/2010. The respondents are the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant sought to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the impugned order.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide whether to grant the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appellant, through its counsel, filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The core issue was whether the appeal, which was filed to challenge the ITAT's dismissal of a miscellaneous petition, should be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ITA NO.839/2018

BETWEEN:

IBM INDIA PVT. LTD., 3RD FLOOR, SUBRAMANYA ARCADE NO.12, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 029 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. CHANDASEKAR THYAGARAJAN PAN AACI4403L. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR M/S KING & PARTRIDGE, ASSOCIATES)

AND:

1 . ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT BANGALORE, JSS TOWERS 100 FEET RING ROAD BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE – 560 085.

2 . PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT BANGALORE, JSS TOWERS 100 FEET RING ROAD

BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE – 560 085. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06.03.2018 BY THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE APPELLANTS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IN M.P. NO.20/BANG/2018 IN IT (TP)A NO.1461/BANG/2010 (ANNEXURE-G).

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

JUDGMENT Learned counsel appearing for appellant has filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. Said memo is placed on record. In view of the same, appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications stands consigned to records.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE DR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →