Rp/1039/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Rekhi Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd
High Court
18 Mar 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Rp/1039/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Rekhi Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
18 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Rp/1039/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Rekhi Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Decision: Learned counsel appearing for both the parties,at the outset submitted that in the lhght of the circulardated 10[ $]December 20195 bearing No.21/2015, theprayer sought in this review petition does not survive for consideration and hence, the review petition is liable tobe disposed of as having becom...
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 KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF MARCH, 2016,
- PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANAREVIEW PETITION No.1039 OF 2014
Between:
1.The Commissioner of Income-Tax,C.R. Building, Queens Road,Bangalore.C.R. Building, Queens Road,Bangalore.
2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), C.R. Building,Queens Road, Bangalore.
...Petitioners
(By Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate)
And:M/s. Rekhi Builders & DevelopersPvt., Ltd.,No.63, Brooklyn Apartments,Cooks Town, Banaswadi Road,Bangalore-33.
...Responden
(By Shri. M. Lava, for Shri. A.Shankar, Advocate) ©
KRREKE
This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of.Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the Judgment dated08/12/2011, passed in I.T.A. No.112/2006, on the file of theHon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.
This Review Petition coming on for Orders, this day,N.K. Patil J., made the following:
ORD BR
Petitioners have filed this Review Petition forreview of the Judgment dated 8[ $]December 2011,rendered in I.T.A. No.112/2006, by the Division Benchof this Court.
2. We have heard Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learnedcounsel appearing for review petitioners and Shri.M.Lava, for Shri.A. Shankar, learned counsel appearing forrespondent and perused the grounds urged in thereview petition and also the judgment under review.
3. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties,at the outset submitted that in the lhght of the circulardated 10[ $]December 20195 bearing No.21/2015, theprayer sought in this review petition does not survive for
consideration and hence, the review petition is liable tobe disposed of as having become infructuous.
4 The said submission of the learned counsel
appearing for both the parties is placed on record.
o. In the light of the circular dated 10[ $]December|
2015 bearing No.21/2015, the instant review petition isdisposed of as having become infructuous.
sD/-JUDGESD/--JUDGE.BMV|
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