THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S REKHI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court acknowledged the submission of both parties that the review petition had become infructuous. Therefore, the court disposed of the review petition without further consideration of its merits.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Department filed a review petition seeking to review a previous judgment of the High Court. Both parties agreed that due to a subsequent circular, the prayer in the review petition no longer survived.
What were the issues?
Whether the review petition had become infructuous due to a subsequent circular issued by the department.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016,
: PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
REVIEW PETITION No.1039 OF 2014
Between:
The Commissioner of Income-Tax, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.
The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.
...Petitioners
(By Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate)
And:
M/s. Rekhi Builders & Developers Pvt., Ltd., No.63, Brooklyn Apartments, Cooks Town, Banaswadi Road, Bangalore-33. …Respondent
(By Shri. M. Lava, for Shri. A.Shankar, Advocate)
*****
This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the Judgment dated 08/12/2011, passed in I.T.A. No.112/2006, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.
This Review Petition coming on for Orders, this day, N.K. Patil J., made the following:
O R D E R
Petitioners have filed this Review Petition for review of the Judgment dated 8th December 2011, rendered in I.T.A. No.112/2006, by the Division Bench of this Court. 2. We have heard Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for review petitioners and Shri.M. Lava, for Shri.A. Shankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent and perused the grounds urged in the review petition and also the judgment under review. 3. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties, at the outset submitted that in the light of the circular dated 10th December 2015 bearing No.21/2015, the prayer sought in this review petition does not survive for
3 consideration and hence, the review petition is liable to be disposed of as having become infructuous. 4. The said submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties is placed on record. 5. In the light of the circular dated 10th December 2015 bearing No.21/2015, the instant review petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE BMV*
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026