THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DSL SOFTWARE LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/926/2006HC KarnatakaKAHC01032049200629 May 2012Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the appeal filed by the revenue. It noted that the Tribunal had set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. The court granted time for the respondent's advocates to file their vakalatnama.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside an order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was formerly known as Deutsche Software Ltd.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the revenue's challenge to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to set aside the Assessing Officer's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 11 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

-1— IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED ThIS ThE 29Th DAY OF MAY 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREEN1VASE GOWDA Income Tar Appeal Na926/2006 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle, C.RBuildlng. Queens Road, Bangalore. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-i 1(2), C.RBuildlng, Queens Road. Bangalore. .. APPELLANTS (By Sri.K.V.Aravlnd. Adv.) AND: MIs DSL Software Ltd.. (Formerly Deutsche Software Ltd..) S’fl’ Unit-I. The Leela Gallerla No.23. Airport Road Bangalore - 560 009. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri M.Lava, Adv., for Sri.A.Shankar & M.Lava, Advs.) This i.T.A. is flied under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act. 1961. praying to allow the appeal and set aside the

2 vrdel% p %‘d b 1 i- Inconw i’x ppe1kdc Tribunal. Is tna1’ :e In N :44; t4an&,r2UO4 ‘hUed 29 12 2t)t5 11 1 i.e a it a tirn he c r p ‘d t_ hr sjst (nii lIc%lc of Lflt;’lii’ iii. ‘. i.• 11(21. flani.ii. •‘iiil t.ii I ‘a nfl or nr I’ d” SRL’WRA KUM4R J-. ci C w f wi’ JUDGMEN7 Ibis appeal by i lie revenue 1% diieetc d aaIn%t IliC c der ci the I wcur 1a ppel i.e 1’ unal Ban alore Wit ore sec A Io.34i /I3 1 uig/2004 1 di (U Li lii 11’; iulit”iIlI’t ,iLt,,tdtITIa Ut—%LIC:ll tj 1 c’S ljt ‘IW 11 tf lTj ‘ 1. Ii’ ii c ne h ic 1’ iii 11 .“ ‘c’ ‘icas— :a 4 fl.. risk ‘ ‘‘ ( J K ‘l’ 1) F 1” If t ‘111 a iij# SE ‘I IL , “ -.•‘.,.. —,

MI. A. Shuiktu ar-I ‘U. l_avL take nodet 1(1 ‘PI)C’L thi rh t’s•c’ 3 t’%J)fJtftI(,t 4 Mr LaSH. waflttd fl)ifl’$ PI’ iU1i1I4 mr ;hc a%sets 1t ponti it subrint S t Itat Lift it’ 1011 P’ ‘st-cl 5 i rnr an’wer p this app.-.’l at the instance il ‘lie teit ni s o - b_’ ru jidcjmc it o tu iI)tibl S petit ( t 1 t C (SC c OMMI &O’UR 0 INCMETAX.TL6Y4YNE ‘ID (20 1)3 0 TR 2’6 1 va, id1irea-idi t s fl%’ita itt’s lit’ JS1JU i’d 11 ii ‘ a IS ‘‘0 t” ol ht ‘ d%C the mitler • ‘Vt ‘ti . t 1 iv j :‘lce’r itT t ii”— ‘. - : t:’&fj j I , t 1 C It 1 (-OMMIS ‘lONER 0 INC OWE I IS Vs TULSYSNflGLID (2011)3 0 1R 2

-4- Four weeks time granted to Advocates, who have appeared for respondent - assessee to file power. Sd!- JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE Mfla

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 →