PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S 3D NETWORKS PTE LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/187/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01050342201829 January 2021Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, while considering the appeal filed by the Revenue, noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue. The Revenue contended that the addition in the case was less than Rs.1 crore and, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable in view of the monetary limits prescribed in Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Based on this submission, the Revenue sought leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to make a prayer for restoration if occasion so arises. The Court granted the liberty as sought by the learned counsel for the Revenue and disposed of the appeal. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(5), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) against an order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Bengaluru. The appeal concerned Assessment Year 2003-2004 and was filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee in this case was M/s. 3D Networks PTE Ltd India Branch, which has since merged with M/s. Wipro Limited.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable in light of the monetary limits prescribed in Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019? (Question of law) The Revenue argued that the addition in the case was less than Rs.1 crore. Consequently, in view of the monetary limits stipulated in Circular No.17/2019, the appeal was not maintainable. The Revenue sought leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to make a prayer for restoration if occasion arises. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

ITA NO.187/2018

BETWEEN:

1 . PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE.

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(5) BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI: JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/s. 3D NETWORKS PTE LTD INDIA BRANCH SINCE MERGED WITH M/s. WIPRO LIMITED, DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025 PAN:AAACZ 1236A ...RESPONDENT

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18.04.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN IT(TP)A NO.622/BANG/2011 FOR A.Y. 2003-2004 & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for appellants- Revenue.

2.

Learned counsel for Revenue submits that the addition in the case is less than Rs.1 crore and in view of the monetary limits prescribed in Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, the appeal is not maintainable and hence he seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to make a prayer for restoration, if occasion so arises.

With such liberty as sought for by learned counsel for Revenue, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

*mn/-

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →