By Sri. K v. Aravind, Advocate
High Court
01 Sep 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
By Sri. K v. Aravind, Advocate
Date of order
01 Sep 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In By Sri. K v. Aravind, Advocate, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
-WRIT PETITION NO.14870/2019 (TIT)
C/W
W.P Nos.14871/2019, 14872/2019, 14873/2019, -14874/2019 and 14875/2019 (TIT)
BETWEEN:
Mysore Palace Board Mysore Palace Premises, Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore-570001 PAN: Represented herein by its Executive Officer, Mr. Abhiram G. Sankar Aged about 30 years.
(By Sri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate)
…Petitioner (Common)
AND:
1.The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Room No. 210, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, No. 21/16, Residency Road, Nazarbad, Mysore - 570 010.
2. The Additional Commissioner of Income tax Range-2 Aayakar Bhavan, No.21/16, Residency Road, Nazarbad, Mysore - 570 010.
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Aayakar Bahvan, No. 21/16, Residency Road, Nazarbad, Mysore - 570 010.
...Respondents (Common)
(By Sri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the impugned proceedings initiated by the R-1 Under Section 147 read with Section 143 of the I.T. Act are opposed to law and therefore without jurisdiction and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary hearing 'B' group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo dated 09.03.2021 in all the petitions, which reads as follows;
"(d) The Petitioner submits that the CDBT has since issued Notification No.S.O.1188(E) dated 20.03.2020 (enclosed as ANNEXURE) amending its earlier Notification dated
09.04.2019 to extend the exemption to the Petitioner with retrospective effect from 01.06.2011.
(e) The entire basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the IT Act was for the reason that the Petitioner was not notified under Section 10(46) and since the CBDT has not granted the exemption under Section 10(46) of the IT Act from 01.06.2011, the prayer sought by the Petitioner in the subject writ petition has therefore become infructuous."
In light of the memo, petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.