Commissioner Of Income Tax - I, Chandigarh v. M/S Abc
High Court
12 Sep 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax - I, Chandigarh v. M/S Abc
Date of order
12 Sep 2022
Assessment year(s)
2006-2007
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax - I, Chandigarh v. M/S Abc, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Decision: Appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH M. ADIGA
INCOME TAX APPEAL No.340/2022
BETWEEN:
M/s. COIMBATORE CABLE NETWORK PVT. LTD., #642, 4 MAIN, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.SANTOSH PHILIPS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O MR.PHILIPS ANTHONY PAN:
[BY SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR J.JAIN, ADVOCATE]
... APPELLANT
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEALS-2, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 15.03.2022 PASSED IN ITA NO.1618/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
- 2 -
J U D G M E N T
Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that in view of the judgment in the case of Pr.
Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC
Papers Limited[1], this appeal is not maintainable before this Court, as the assessment has been made in Coimbatore. Hence, he seeks leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to present the same before the High Court of Madras.
Leave granted.
Appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*
1[2022] 141 taxmann.com 332(SC)
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.