the commissioner of income tax vs. M/S MANAGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal as the Vivad se Vishwas scheme application could not be processed due to the pending appeal. The Court granted liberty to revive the appeal if necessary.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue can be withdrawn to facilitate the processing of the assessee's Vivad se Vishwas application.
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 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A. NO.704 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING
80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
CIRCLE-2(2), 4TH FLOOR
BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD
KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.
… APPELLANTS (BY Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,)
AND:
M/S. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KUTHETHOOR, P.O. VIA KATIPALLA, MANGALURU-575030.
…. RESPONDENT (BY Mr. VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADV., & Mr. GEORGE PHILIP, ADV.,)
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 6.2.2019 PASSED IN IT(IT)A No.1752/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(IT)A No.1752/BANG/2017 DATED 6.2.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU & ETC.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue.
Mr.Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel along with Mr.George Philip, learned counsel for the assessee.
Learned counsel for the revenue has filed a memo seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal.
Learned counsel for the revenue submits that during the pendency of this appeal, the assessee has preferred an application under ‘Vivad se Vishwas’ Scheme, which has been entertained and on account of pendency of the appeal, the application submitted by the assessee could not be processed further. He, therefore, seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to revive the same as and when occasion so arise.
The memo is taken on record.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of in terms of liberty as prayed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE dn/- CT-HR
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026