Ita/168/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Nandi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhana Niyamit
High Court
24 Jul 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karhckalaburagi
Parties
Ita/168/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Nandi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhana Niyamit
Date of order
24 Jul 2012
Assessment year(s)
2001-2002
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/168/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Nandi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhana Niyamit, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Today, once again, none appears for the appellants.Hence, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal fornon-prosecution.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKACIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF JULY 2O127
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
ITA NO.168/2010
BETWEEN
1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXFEROZ KHIMJIBHAIFEROZ KHIMJIBHAI
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL,DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,BELGAUM.DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,BELGAUM.
2.THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-I, BIJAPUR.CIRCLE-I, BIJAPUR.
APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.ARAVIND, ADV., (ABSENT)
AND
NANDI SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANA NIYAMITKRISHNA NAGAR, CHIKGALGALI, BIJAPUR
DISTRICT.
(BY SRI S.PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,)
RESPONDENTS
THIS ITA FILED IS FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.11.2009 PASSED IN ITANO.1306/BANG/2003, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002,PRAYING TO: |. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF
LAW STATED THEREIN, tlh ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDETHE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITIAT, BANGALORE IN IINO.1306/BANG/2003 DATED 30.11.2009 AND CONFIRM THEORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR.
ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURTDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING!
PC:
This Income Tax Appeal was placed for admission onseveral occasions. Out of the last four dates, we find thaton 17.4.12 and on 29.5.12, none appeared for theappellants. On 22.5.12, it was adjourned at the requestof learned counsel for the appellants.
Today, once again, none appears for the appellants.Hence, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal fornon-prosecution. Order accordingly.
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.
EaseValue