M/S ABHILASH SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/22253/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01051563202210 November 2022Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directed the respondent appellate authorities to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously. The court acknowledged the undisputed fact that the appeal had not yet been decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of their pending appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Authorities. The appeal concerned a claim for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the delay in the disposal of the petitioner's appeal. The court focused on ensuring timely resolution rather than adjudicating the merits of the appeal itself.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.22253 OF 2022 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

M/S. ABHILASH SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (REGD. WITH REGISTRAR OF FIRMS ON 11.03.2003) (ACTIVITY OF DEVELOPING, OPERATING & MAINTAINING INDUSTRIAL PARK) NO.2/10, 3RD FLOOR, PRASAD GROUP 80 FEET ROAD, PUJARI LAYOUT RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 094. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI SIDDARAMANNA PRASAD AGED 68 YEARS S/O OF SRI. SIDDARAMANNA. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. JINITA CHATERJEE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

(APPEALS), BENGLAURU -6

ROOM NO.753, BMTC BUILDING

7TH FLOOR, KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK

BENGALURU – 560 095.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

OF INCOME TAX (APEALS), IT DEPT.,

NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

DELHI – 110 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI., ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS EITHER THE R-1 OR THE R-2 AS THE CASE MAY BE BEFORE WHOM THE APPEAL IS PENDING, TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME EXPEDITIOUSLY AND ETC.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents either the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent as the case may be before whom the appeal is pending, to dispose of the same expeditiously;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent / 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed for the relevant assessment year within 2 months by allowing the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in light of the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court in the petitioner’s own case and also in accordance with the Notification dated 01.03.2018 issued by the CBDT (Annexure – C);

c) Pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, and

d) Direct the respondents to award the costs of this writ petition.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal pending before the concerned respondent Nos.1 and 2 / Appellate Authority filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of so far and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the undisputed fact that the appeal before the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has not been disposed of so far, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of

4 the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition directing the concerned respondent Nos.1 and 2 to dispose of the appeal pending before it as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 80-IA

All 612 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →