The Commissioner of Income T vs. M/s.Ramaniyam Castles P Ltd.

TCA/311/2022HC Madras08 November 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice S. VAIDYANATHAN4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue requires no interference. The Court found that the issue before it was squarely covered by its own previous decisions in Bashyam Constructions (P.) Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax V. Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise. The latter decision was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, based on these precedents, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. No costs were awarded. The specific issue decided by the ITAT and the reasoning behind its order are not detailed in this judgment, as the High Court's decision is based on the principle of stare decisis.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal against the order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai. The appeal was filed against M/s. Ramaniyam Castles P Ltd. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the ITAT passing an order which is now under challenge before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 593 of 2011. The Revenue contended that the appeal should be considered on its merits. The Respondent (assessee) did not present any specific arguments in the provided text, but the High Court's decision implies that the ITAT's order was in favor of the assessee. The High Court relied on previous judgments of the same court and the Supreme Court to decide the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A. No. 311 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.11.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN T.C.A. No. 311 of 2022 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ..Appellant Vs. M/s. Ramaniyam Castles P Ltd., 21, Laya Apartments, II Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. ..Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal as against the order dated 17.02.2012 in ITA 593/Mds/2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench,Chennai. For Appellant :: Mr.T. Ravikumar 1\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. No. 311 of 2022 For Respondent :: Mr.A.S. Sriraman J U D G M E N T S. VAIDYANATHAN,J AND C. SARAVANAN,J. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 2. We are of the view that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 17.02.2012 in I.T.A. No. 593 of 2011 on the file Income Tax Appellate Tribunal requires no interference as the issue is now squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Bashyam Constructions (P.) Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai reported in ([2019] 103 taxmann.com 425 (Madras)) & Commissioner of Income Tax V. Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise reported in (2013) 215 taxman 0463 and the decision of this Court in the latter case has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by its judgment reported 2\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. No. 311 of 2022 in [2017] 84 taxmann.com 241 (Commissioner of Income-tax V. Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise). 3. In the light of the above, the tax case appeal stands dismissed. No costs. (S.V.N.J.) (C.S.N.J.) nv 08.11.2022 S. VAIDYANATHAN,J. 3\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. No. 311 of 2022 AND C. SARAVANAN,J. nv T.C.A. No. 311 of 2022 08.11.2022 4\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →