M/S Esteem Classic vs The Deputy Commissioner Of
2021 Latest Caselaw 1796 Kant

                               1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021

                          PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                  I.T.A. NO.760 OF 2018
BETWEEN:

M/s. Esteem Classic
Rep. by its Partner
Sri. Naraiandas Bodaram
No.32, 33 & 34
3rd floor, SNS Chambers
No.239, Sankey Road
Bengaluru - 560 080.
                                            ... Appellant

(By Sri. A Shankar - Sr. Counsel for
    Sri. M. Lava - Advocate)

AND:

The Deputy Commissioner of
Income-Tax
Central Circle - 1[4]
C.R. Buildings, Queen's Road
Bengaluru - 560 001.
                                          ... Respondent

(By Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi - Advocate)

                            ---
                                     2




        This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax
Act 1961, arising out of order dated 02.05.2018 passed in
ITA Nos.1053 & 1054/Bang/2016, for the Assessment year
2010-2011 & 2011-12, praying to formulate the substantial
of law as stated above and answer the same in favour of the
appellant ; allow the appeal filed by the appellant against the
common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Bangalore      Bench    'A'     Bangalore     in     ITA     Nos.1053    &
1054/Bang/2016 for the Assessment Years 2010-2011 &
2011-12 dated 02.05.2018 vide Annexure-A.


        This I.T.A. coming on for Hearing, this day ALOK
ARADHE J., delivered the following:


                              JUDGMENT

Shri A. Shankar, learned Senior counsel for Shri M.

Lava, learned counsel for the Assessee.

Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for the

Revenue.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the Assessee submits

that in view of the common judgment rendered today by this

court in ITA Nos.842/2018, 843/2018, 844/2018, the

substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have been

rendered academic.

3. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is not

necessary for us to answer the substantial questions of law

framed in this appeal.

4. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to

revive the same, in case occasion so arises.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KS