THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A) vs. M/S DHANYA AGROINDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/688/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01038631201728 February 2018Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S SUNIL DUTT YADAV3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court permitted the appellants (Revenue) to withdraw their appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The appeal was filed with a delay of 20 days, and an application for condonation of delay was submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court should condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether the appeal itself was necessary to be pursued.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

I.T.A. NO. 688 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A)

5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BENGLAURU – 560 095.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE -2(1) (2)

2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BENGLAURU – 560 095. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

AND: M/s.DHANYA AGROINDUSTRIAL PVT.LTD., NO.489/11, ECOM HOUSE BOREWELL ROAD, WHITEFIELD BENGLAURU – 560 066. PAN: AACCD 8919J ... RESPONDENT (BY Ms.TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

- 2 - M/s.KINGS & PATRIDGE, ASSTS. ADVOCATES) ---

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 08.03.2017, PASSED IN IT(TP) NO.161/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT (TP)A NO.161/BANG/2016 DATED: 08.03.2017 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1) (2), BENGLAURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT This appeal is reportedly time barred by 20 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. However, learned counsel for the appellants frankly submits that in fact, this appeal is rather redundant as regards the part of the order impugned which is otherwise not against the revenue; and in this view of the matter, he does not wish to pursue this appeal any further and seeks permission to withdraw.

Learned counsel for respondent has no objection.

- 3 - Having regard to the submission made, the appellants are permitted to withdraw and this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE SA

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 →