High Court of Karnataka Allows Revenue to Withdraw Appeal in Income Tax Case — Liberty Granted to Raise Similar Questions in Other Appeals. Appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 215
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal was filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, dated 10/4/2018 in ITA No.1105/Bang/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appellants, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, sought to challenge the ITAT's order. However, at the hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the appellants be permitted to withdraw the appeal without prejudice to their right to raise similar questions in other appeals. The Court, comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, accepted the submission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty as prayed for. The judgment is brief and does not delve into the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn at the instance of the Revenue.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Appeal - Withdrawal - Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Revenue sought to withdraw appeal without prejudice to raising similar questions in other appeals - Court permitted withdrawal and dismissed appeal as withdrawn - Held that appeal can be withdrawn with liberty (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

KAHC010488362018_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

Law Points

  • Withdrawal of appeal
  • liberty to raise similar questions in other appeals
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 252

I.T.A. No.690 of 2018

2020-07-09

Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar

Sri. K.V. Aravind (for appellants)

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 5th Floor, BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road, Kormangala, Bengaluru-560095 and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Present Address DCIT Circle-5(1)(1), 2nd Floor, BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road, Kormangala, Bengaluru-560095

M/s. Ranjitpura Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., No.101, Plot No.10, Pride Elite, Museum Road, Bengaluru-560001, PAN: AADCR 8205J

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of ITAT

Remedy Sought

Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal without prejudice to raising similar questions in other appeals

Filing Reason

Challenge to ITAT order dated 10/4/2018 in ITA No.1105/Bang/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12

Previous Decisions

ITAT order dated 10/4/2018 in ITA No.1105/Bang/2015

Submissions/Arguments

Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the appellants be permitted to withdraw the appeal without prejudice to the similar questions being raised in other appeals.

Ratio Decidendi

An appeal can be withdrawn by the appellant with liberty to raise similar questions in other appeals.

Judgment Excerpts

Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the appellants be permitted to withdraw the appeal without prejudice to the similar questions being raised in other appeals. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of liberty as prayed for.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of ITAT, Bangalore dated 10/4/2018 in ITA No.1105/Bang/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12. At the hearing, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal, which was permitted by the Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 260-A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Summary Judgment in Favor of Contractor for Unpaid Construction Work — Unsupported Denial of Liability and Allegations of Poor Workmanship Do Not Raise Triable Issues Under Order 37 CPC. The court held that a defendant must...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Hears Challenge to Reservation in Promotion Policy of Mumbai Port Trust; Office Memorandum Dated 21 January 2002 Under Scrutiny. Petitioners Allege Violation of M. Nagaraj Principles and 100% Reservation for SC/ST in Office Superint...