High Court of Karnataka · Procedural and interlocutory orders
The Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS) & Anr. v. Avesagenome Project International Pvt. Ltd.
Review Petition No. 84 of 2023 (in ITA No. 156/2021) ·
Revenue review withdrawn on CBDT monetary-limit memo; original appeal order not reviewed.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
The Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) and Deputy Commissioner sought review or recall of the 3 January 2023 order in ITA 156/2021 concerning Avesagenome Project International Pvt. Ltd. Revenue’s withdrawal memo cited CBDT Circular 9/2024, stating that the limit had increased from Rs.1 crore to Rs.2 crore and this matter fell below Rs.2 crore.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Court reproduced the monetary-limit memo and disposed of the review on that basis. It did not examine the review grounds or reconsider the original appeal’s tax issues.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The review petition stood dismissed as withdrawn in view of Revenue’s memo.
4. OUTCOME
Revenue did not obtain review or recall. The source contains no fresh merits holding in favour of either side.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
Monetary policy supplied the withdrawal reason
Revenue’s memo invoked the increased threshold and stated this matter was below it. The Court accepted withdrawal without analysing the circular’s exceptions or computing tax effect. This source demonstrates the stated basis of this particular withdrawal, not universal eligibility under the circular.
A review proceeding is distinct from the original appeal
RP 84/2023 sought review of the 3 January 2023 order in ITA 156/2021. Its withdrawal left that order unrecalled by this proceeding, but does not restate or independently endorse the original reasoning. Substantive reliance requires reading the original appeal order.
Do not import a TDS merits holding
The Revenue petitioner’s TDS designation identifies its office. It does not establish which withholding provision or substantive issue the Court decided; none was decided in this withdrawal order. The assessment year and precise tax effect are not supplied.
Source and verification
3-page official High Court of Karnataka judgment PDF (20251118_KAHC010108222023.pdf, 85,483 bytes).
Original PDF: 3 pages · SHA-256: f8fe311c015cb174f880f4f83e8f242273768e211428c3db3693b5e11fde38f2
All 3 original pages read and visually inspected; all five panels audited.
The source records procedural withdrawal, not a substantive construction of the Income-tax Act. No current operation of a cited policy or later remedy is verified.
Subsequent treatment has not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Expert Comments are editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.