THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CIT (A) vs. M/S.EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/13/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01048031201929 January 2021Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the Revenue's memo for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to seek revival if necessary.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue can withdraw its appeal when the assessee has opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

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 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA I.T.A. NO.13/2020 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIT(A)

5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA,

BENGALURU - 560 095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

LTU, PRESENT ADDRESS

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2)

2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA,

BENGALURU - 560 095. .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ING VYSYS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,) NO.3/1, 3RD FLOOR, JP TECHNO PARK, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. PAN: AAACI 7940L. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.MAHIMA GOUD, SRI. SURYANARAYANA.T, ADVS )

2 - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:24.04.2019 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.338/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, V. SRISHANANDA. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Sri K.V. Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. Smt. Mahima Goud, learned counsel for Sri Suryanarayana.T, Adv. for respondent - assessee. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue files a Memo for withdrawal dated 29.1.2021, which reads thus: "MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL The above appeal has been preferred by the revenue being aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal dated 24.04.2019. During pendency of the above appeal, the assessee has preferred an application under Vivid Se Vishwas Scheme ['VSV

3 Scheme' for short] and the same has been entertained. It is submitted that in view of the pendency of the above appeal, the application under the scheme is not finally concluded. Hence, the appellants seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above appeal, with liberty to seek revival of this appeal if need arises in the interest of justice and equity." 4. Memo is accepted. In terms of the Memo, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for. Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE PL*

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 →