The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Intel Technology India Pvt Ltd

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2021

                       PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                 I.T.A. NO.157 OF 2007
BETWEEN:

1.     THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
       INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,
       RASTROTHANA BUILDING,
       NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
       BANGALORE.

2.   THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER
     INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,
     WARD-19(1), RASTROTHANA BUILDING,
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
     BANGALORE.
                                     ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,
NO.136, AIRPORT ROAD,
BANGALORE-17.
                                         ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE A/W
    MS. MANASA, ADVOCATE)

                         ---
                              2



     THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF
INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED
26.04.2006 PASSED IN ITA NO.972/BANG/2004 FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, PRAYING TO:
     (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF
LAW STATED THEREIN.
     (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE, IN ITA NO.972/BANG/2004 DATED 26.04.2006
AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE
COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
INCOME     TAX  OFFICER,  INTERNATIONAL   TAXATION,
WARD-19(1), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.

    THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue. Mr. T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee.

2. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has availed the benefit of "Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and along with the memo, true copy of Form-3 has been produced. It is therefore submitted that the appeal may be disposed of. 3

3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the revenue seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal with a liberty to revive the same if occasion so arises.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the liberty as prayed for.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE HR