COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S TOPSPIN COMMUNICATION
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal if the occasion arises. This was based on the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The assessee had applied for resolution of the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the pendency of the appeal before the High Court in light of the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.178 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX-III, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS
QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD-12(2), BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGESHWAR RAO, ADV., FOR SRI. MALLAHARAO K, ADV.,) AND: M/S. TOPSPIN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. C/O. M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. NO.11, O SHAUGHNESSEY ROAD OFF LANGFORD ROAD BANGALORE-560025.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.)
2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10.02.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1280/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO:
I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. II. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1280/BANG/2010 DATED 10.02.2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.K.Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has applied under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme for resolution of the dispute. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the revenue submits that the appeal may be disposed of with liberty to revive the same if occasion so arises.
3 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to the revenue to revive the same if occasion so arises. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026