THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD vs. LUKAS FOLC PETR FOLC

PDF · subscribers
TA/53/2011HC BombayHCBM03027216201110 November 2014Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.V. NIRGUDE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.L. ACHLIYA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals. The Court's reasoning was based on its own prior judgment in Income Tax Appeal No. 87 of 2000 (The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mr. Jaydev H. Raja), where it had upheld the ITAT's order in a similar case. The Court also referred to a Delhi High Court judgment in Yoshio Kubo Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which was dated 31st July, 2013. Since the questions raised in the present appeals had already been considered and decided by the High Court, and the facts were similar, the Court found no merit in the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

These are two Income Tax Appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad, against the respondents Lukas Folc Petr Folc and Robert Joseph Hodul. The appeals challenge orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai. The High Court noted that the questions arising in these appeals were considered and decided by the ITAT based on its earlier decision in the case of Jaydev H. Raja. The High Court itself had previously upheld the ITAT's order in the Jaydev H. Raja case. The facts in the present appeals were stated to be similar to those in the Jaydev H. Raja case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether substantial questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals, concerning the correctness of the ITAT's order. The Revenue, as the appellant, contended that substantial questions of law do arise. The Revenue relied on the fact that the ITAT's decision was based on its own prior ruling in Jaydev H. Raja. The Revenue also referred to a Delhi High Court judgment in Yoshio Kubo Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Respondent (assessee) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 4 ta.53.11 n ita.2.13.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURI ICTION TAX APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2011 THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD VERSUS LUKAS FOLC PETR FOLC WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD VERSUS ROBERT JOSEPH HODUL … Mr. Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant in both the matters. Mr. Jayant R. Shah, Advocate for the Respondent in both the matters. ... CORAM  : A.V. NIRGUDE   and V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE      : 10th November, 2014. P.C.: . We have heard submissions at Bar on both these Appeals. 2 We find that no substantial questions of law arise in these Appeals. The questions that arose in these Appeals were considered and decided by the authority below on the basis of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Jaydev H. Raja, Mumbai Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai in  I.T.A. No.2021/M/98. [ V.L. ACHLIYA, J. ]

[ A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ] ndm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →