M/S.BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek revival of the appeal if necessary.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The appellant subsequently informed the court that they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the appellant's decision to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
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 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ITA NO.641/2019
BETWEEN:
M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) (COM.O&M), BCC COMPLEX, 12TH MAIN 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 PAN:AACCJ2951N. …APPELLANT
(BY SMT. C. PADMAVATHY, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE-1(1), HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 032. …RESPONDENT
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10/05/2019, PASSED IN ITA NO.655, 656, 657, 658 AND 659/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 AND PRAYING TO (A) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT (B) DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES NOT ADJUDICATED BY THEM AND TO THAT EXTENT HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS BAD IN LAW, IN THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU ‘C’ BENCH, IN ITA NO.655, 656, 656, 657, 658 AND 659/BANG/2018 DATED 10/05/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16
RESPECTIVELY, ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS NOT DECIDED, DE NOVO AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Smt. C. Padmavathy, Deputy General Manager of BESCOM (CT & GST), who appeared in person has fairly stated before this Court that the appellant-Company has approached the Department under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
A memo has been filed by the Deputy General Manager, praying for withdrawal of the appeal as the appellant-Company has opted for Vivad Se Viswas Scheme with liberty to seek revival, if need arises.
The memo is accepted.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for in the memo.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE TL
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 →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026