What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a six-month time limit for filing rectification applications before the Tribunal. The petitioner later sought permission to withdraw the writ petition.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the constitutional validity of the time limit for filing rectification applications before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the case was disposed of before this issue was adjudicated.

Alten Calsoft Labs (India) Pvt.Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner | Karnataka High Court 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

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

WRIT PETITION NO.14677 OF 2019 (T–IT)

BETWEEN:

ALTEN CALSOFT LABS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CALSOFT LABS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) 7TH FLOOR, TOWER D, IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK 4/4, BANNERGHATTA ROAD SUDDUGUNTEPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 029 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.BAIJU P. SANKARAN

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.V.VINAY GIRI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE - 2(1)(1),

ROOM NO.215, 2ND FLOOR

BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD

KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU - 560 095

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX - 2

BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD

KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU - 560 095

THE UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

NORTH BLOCK

NEW DELHI - 110 001

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.C.SHASHIKANTHA, CGC FOR R.3)

-----

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF PROVIDES THAT AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD OF THE TRIBUNALS IS TO BE FILED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

SD/- JUDGE

NBM

ALTEN CALSOFT LABS (INDIA) PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments