Ita/100002/2020 Of M/S. Kanakadas Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit v. The Income-Tax Officer
High Court
14 Mar 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · karhcdharwad
Parties
Ita/100002/2020 Of M/S. Kanakadas Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit v. The Income-Tax Officer
Date of order
14 Mar 2024
Assessment year(s)
2015-16
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/100002/2020 Of M/S. Kanakadas Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit v. The Income-Tax Officer, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
VISHALNINGAPPAPATTIHALLocation: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCHDate: 2024.03.1415:05:27 +0530
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5228-DBITA No. 100002 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 100002 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. KANAKADAS PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT OPP: TAHASILDAR OFFICE, POST: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT, R/BY ITS MANAGER, SHRI.PRASHANTH S/O NAGUSHA, SINGRI, AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H R KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, C.R. BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KIMJI BAI BUILDING, OPP-CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI-590001. (APPEALS), KIMJI BAI BUILDING, OPP-CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ADMINISTRATION), KIMJI BAI BUILDING, OPP-CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI-590001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS ITA IS FILED U/SEC.260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, A. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE. B. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ORDER DATED 23.12.2019 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, ”SMC-A” BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 1187/bang/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is of the year 2020. Till today the office objections are not complied with.
2.The Advocate for the appellant is absent. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE
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.