Case LawHigh Court › Rp/100116/2017 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Rp/100116/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) v. Sri. Doodhganga Co-Operative

High Court 05 Feb 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karhcdharwad
Parties
Rp/100116/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) v. Sri. Doodhganga Co-Operative
Date of order
05 Feb 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Rp/100116/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) v. Sri. Doodhganga Co-Operative, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH. DATEBD THIS THE DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018|PRESENT THRE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND. THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHABL CUNHA| R.P. NO.100116/2017 BBRIWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)3RD FLOOR, PHIROZ KHIMJI COMPLEXOPPOSITEK TO CIVIL HOSPITALDR. AMBBDKAR ROAD|BBLAGAVI 590 OO]3RD FLOOR, PHIROZ KHIMJI COMPLEXOPPOSITEK TO CIVIL HOSPITALDR. AMBBDKAR ROAD|BBLAGAVI 590 OO] 2.THER INCOME TAX OFFICKBWARD NO.1, NIPPANI|TALUK: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVIWARD NO.1, NIPPANI|TALUK: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI _. PRHTITIONBRS (BY SRI Y V RAVIRAJ, ADV.) AND: SRI. DDODHGANGA CO-OPHRATIVECREDIT SOCEITY LITD., KARADGATALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591201RBEPRBSEBENTBD BY MANAGKSHRI.DIPAK RAVASAHEB TAPKIRE,|AGED: MAJOR, RESIDENT OF KARADGA, TALUK:CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. .. RESPONDENT THIS PBRTITION IS FILED UNDBR ORDER XLVI] RULE 1 OFCPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THR ORDER DATED 21.09.2015.PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN ITA NO.100060/2014, ON.THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,|DHARWAD BRNCH AT DHARWAD. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON I.A. THIS|DAY,S.SUJATHA J..MADE THR FOLLOWING: ORDER The issue involved in this review petition issquarely covered by the order of this Court in R.P.No.100117/2017 dated 22.01.2018. In view of thesame, the present review petition deserves to bedismissed. ? It 1s significant to note that this petition isfiled with an inordinate delay of 694 days. No)satisfactory reasons are assigned to condone the delay. —Hence, I.A. seeking condonation of delay has to berejected. | 3.Accordingly, review petition as well as I.A.No.1/2017 stands dismissed in terms of the order ofthis Court in R.P. No.100117/2017. Sd/-JUDGE| hnm| Sd/-JUDGE
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