M/S. FUSION-JEWELS OF SOUTH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to seek revival if the occasion arises.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the High Court against an order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal filed before the High Court.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
I.T.A. NO.60 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
M/S. FUSION-JEWELS OF SOUTH REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. K.H. ARJUN, #503 SURYA KIRAN COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, 50 FEET ROAD HANUMANTHNAGAR BENGALURU-560050 PAN:AACFF 1871 C. .... APPELLANT (BY MS. BHAIRAV, ADV., FOR MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1), BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. DILEEPKUMAR, ADV., FOR 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 20.09.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.198/BANG/2015 AND MP NO.223/BANG/2017 (IN ITA 198/BANG/2015) DATED 5.1.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, PRAYING TO
(i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS THEREIN TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.198/BANG/2015 DATED 20.9.2017 AND MP NO.223/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO.198/BANG/2015) DATED 5.1.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A1 AND A2 RESPECTIVELY) & ETC.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Bhairav, learned counsel for Sri. M. Lava, learned counsel for the assessee through video conferencing.
Sri. Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the revenue.
Learned counsel for the assessee has filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The aforesaid memo is taken on record.
For the reasons assigned in the memo, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to seek revival of the same in case of occasion so arises.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026