THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S COMFUND FINANCIAL SERVICES P LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted the submission that the appeal had become infructuous due to a prior remand order. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against an order of the ITAT. The parties submitted that the matter had been remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in a previous reference.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal had become infructuous due to a prior remand order by the ITAT.
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 BANGALORE
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2013 PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR
ITA No. 117 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
1 The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle C R Building Queens Road Bangalore
2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle –4(2) C R Building Queens Road Bangalore
…Appellants
(By Sri K.V. Arvind, Advocate)
AND:
M/s. Comfund Financial Services P. Ltd., Raheja Towers, West Wing
2 26-27, M.G. Road Bangalore – 560 001
…Respondent
(By Sri S. Parthasarathi, Advocate)
This ITA filed under Section 260A of I.T. Act 1961 arising out of order dated 14-07-2006 passed in ITA No.1432/Bang/2003 for the Assessment year 1993-94, praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein; (ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.1432/Bang/2003 dated 14-07-2006 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Company Circle-4(2), Bangalore.
This ITA coming on for hearing this day, N. KUMAR J., delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The learned Counsel appearing for the parties submitted that in view of the order dated 07.12.2007 in ITRC No.49/2000, where, after allowing the reference, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and this appeal has become infructuous.
3 2.
The said submission is placed on record. Appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
ksp/-
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026