M/S. ELITE ENTERPRISES vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/25863/2014HC KarnatakaKAHC01022203201416 January 2018Bench: VINEET KOTHARI2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Balram R. Rao, expressed the desire to withdraw the writ petition. The opposite counsel for the respondents indicated no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court proceeded to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case or the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 264. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Elite Enterprises, represented by its partner Sri. K.B. Raghuraman, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition sought to quash an order dated March 21, 2014, passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mangalore, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order pertained to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The respondents in the writ petition were the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mangalore, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Puttur. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner was challenging the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 264.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mangalore, dated March 21, 2014, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2006-07, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact) The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Balram R. Rao, informed the Court that the petitioner wished to withdraw the writ petition. The counsel for the respondents, Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, stated that they had no objection to the withdrawal. No specific arguments were recorded for either side regarding the merits of the case, as the matter was concluded by the petitioner's request to withdraw.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

WRIT PETITION No.25863/2014 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

M/S. ELITE ENTERPRISES SUDHA NILAYA, 7/96 NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE BELTHANGADY-574 214 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. K.B. RAGHURAMAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS SON OF SRI. K.G. BALAKRISHNAN. ... PETITIONER (By Mr. BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.,)

AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX MANGALORE, I FLOOR, CR BUILDING M.G.ROAD, ATTAVARA MANGALORE-575 001.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PUTTUR RADHIKA PLAZA, COURT ROAD PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA. ... RESPONDENTS (By Mr. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV., FOR Mr. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DT.21.3.14, PASSED U/S.264 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE ANN-F & ETC.,

Date of Order 16-01-2018 W.P.No.25863/2014 M/s. Elite Enterprises Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

2/2

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Mr. Balram R. Rao, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Adv. for Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Adv. Respondents

1.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Balram R.Rao wants to withdraw the writ petition.

2.

Opposite counsel has no objection. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/- JUDGE

Srl.

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →