GLOBAL E BUSINESS OPERATIONS PVT. LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
ITA/111/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01050122201609 March 2021Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court took on record the memo filed by the appellant. For the reasons stated in the memo, the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee's counsel submitted that the issue in the appeal had become academic due to a Supreme Court decision. The revenue's counsel did not dispute this fact.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal has become academic in light of a Supreme Court judgment, rendering the appeal infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI I.T.A. NO.111 OF 2016 BETWEEN: GLOBAL e:BUSINESS OPERATIONS PVT.LTD. KALANI PLATINA, PHASE-II BUILDING SURVEY NOs.1,6 AND 24 KUNDALAHALLI VILLAGE K.R.PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE-560 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.SURESH AKELLA ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(2) [FORMERLY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE]

BMTC BUILDING

80 FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE-560 001

2 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BMTC BUILDING 80 FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 001

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04.09.2015 PASSED IN IT (TP)A No.1678/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 (ANNEXURE-D) PRAYING TO; (i) FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU, PRONOUNCED ON 04.09.2015 IN IT (TP)A No.1678/Bang/2012 TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee. Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the issue involved in this appeal has been rendered academic in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in

3 CIT Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [(2018) 93 Taxmann.com 33 (SC)]. 2. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 3. The memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record and for the reasons assigned in the memo, the appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE GH

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 →