Case LawHigh Court › India & Another v. Karnataka State Souha...

India & Another v. Karnataka State Souharda

High Court 26 May 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karhcdharwad
Parties
India & Another v. Karnataka State Souharda
Date of order
26 May 2022
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In India & Another v. Karnataka State Souharda, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.

Decision: In the above circumstances, we find no merits to interfere in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands rejected.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Digitallysigned by JMAMATHAJMAMATHALocation:DHARWADDate:2022.05.2811:50:04+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26 DAY OF MAY, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT -WRIT APPEAL NO. 100094 OF 2020 (TIT) BETWEEN: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GOKAK, DR.GHODIGERI’S HOSPITAL BUILDING, BELAGAVI ROAD, GOKAK-591307. WARD-1, GOKAK, DR.GHODIGERI’S HOSPITAL BUILDING, BELAGAVI ROAD, GOKAK-591307. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACT, GOKAK, DR.GHODIGERI’S HOSPITAL BUILDING, BELAGAVI ROAD, GOKAK-591307. DR.GHODIGERI’S HOSPITAL BUILDING, BELAGAVI ROAD, GOKAK-591307. 3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. 4. MINISTRY OF FINANCE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001, REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY. … APPELLANTS (BY SHRI Y.V. RAVIRAJ & SHRI TULAJAPPA KALBURGI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SHRI. NAMDEV SOUHARD PATTIN SAHAKARI NIYAMITH SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI, REP. BY ITS CEO, SMT.SEEMA W/O BASAVARAJ DEVARAKKI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NIYAMITH SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI, REP. BY ITS CEO, SMT.SEEMA W/O BASAVARAJ DEVARAKKI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO.610, 3 GATE, 6 FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560052, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560052, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI H.R. KAMBIYAVAR & SMT. PATRI SHASHIKALA, ADVOCATES FOR R1; SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP.NO.110345/2019 (T-IT) DATED 27.01.2020; TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The subject matter of this appeal we are told is substantially similar to the one in W.A. No.378/2020 (T-IT) connected with W.A. No. 406/2020 (T-IT) between the Government of India & another Vs. Karnataka State Souharda Federal Co-operative Limited and another, disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20[th] December 2021. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant does not, in all fairness, dispute the above position as contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. Learned AGA too echoes the same. No case for deviating from the view taken by the said Co-ordinate Bench is made out before us, either. In the above circumstances, we find no merits to interfere in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands rejected. Pending applications, if any, pale into insignificance in view of the rejection of the appeal. Costs made easy. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Vnp*
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan