The Subject Matter Of This Appeal We Are Told Is Substantially Similar To The One In W.a v. Karnataka State Souharda
High Court
26 May 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karhcdharwad
Parties
The Subject Matter Of This Appeal We Are Told Is Substantially Similar To The One In W.a 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 The Subject Matter Of This Appeal We Are Told Is Substantially Similar To The One In W.a v. Karnataka State Souharda, the High Court (2022) decided the matter under Section 4 of the Income-tax Act.
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.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Digitallysigned by JMAMATHAJLocation:MAMATHADHARWADDate:2022.05.2811:51:27+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. 100098 OF 2020 (TIT)
BETWEEN:
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1(2), FIROZ KHIMJIBHAI COMPLEX, OPP: CIVIL HOSPITAL, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.
… APPELLANT
(BY SHRI Y.V. RAVIRAJ & SHRI TULAJAPPA KALBURGI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SHRI.SHRIDHARSWAMI CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMITH LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHRI.PRABHAKAR RANGNATH KULKARNI, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: CHAIRMAN, R/O: MARUTHI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.103548/2019 (T-IT), DATED 27.01.2020 AND ETC.,
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*
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.