PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MENIZIES BOBBA GROUND HANDLING SERVICES PVT LTD

ITA/95/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01035529202616 July 2026Author: S.G.PANDIT,K.MANMADHA RAO3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable before it. The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in PCIT v/s ABL PAPERS (2022) 447 ITR 1, which established that the jurisdiction of the High Court for appeals under Section 260A is determined by the location where the assessment order is passed. In this case, both the assessment order and the ITAT order originated from Hyderabad. Therefore, the appeal should have been filed before the appropriate jurisdictional High Court, which would be the High Court of Telangana. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the Revenue to file an appeal before the correct jurisdictional High Court. No other issues were decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kormangala, Bangalore (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), B Bench, Hyderabad. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16 and concerns the respondent-assessee, Menzies Bobba Ground Handling Services Pvt. Ltd. (now merged). The Revenue contended that the appeal is maintainable before the Karnataka High Court as the registered office of the respondent is in Bangalore. However, it was an admitted fact that the assessment order dated 12.12.2017 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 16(2), Hyderabad, and the ITAT order was also from Hyderabad.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue before the High Court of Karnataka is maintainable, considering the jurisdiction of the assessing officer and the ITAT. The Revenue argued that the appeal is maintainable before the Karnataka High Court because the registered office of the respondent-assessee is located in Bangalore. The Revenue relied on the fact that the assessee's registered office is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court. The Revenue also implicitly argued that the location of the registered office is a determining factor for the High Court's jurisdiction in an appeal under Section 260A. The Revenue's counsel appeared and argued on the question of maintainability. No arguments were recorded for the respondent-assessee on the maintainability of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KORMANGALA, BANGALORE …APPELLANT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, STANDING COUNSEL A/W SRI NIRMAL MATHEW, STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

MENIZIES BOBBA GROUND HANDLING SERVICES PVT. LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH MANZI AVIATION BOBBA) BANGALO PVT. LTD. …RESPONDENT

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED.09.10.2024 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH HYDERABAD, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEES CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.226/HYD/2021 FOR A.Y.2015-16 (ANNEXURE-A) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel along with Sri.Nirmal Mathew, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, on the question of maintainability of appeal before this Court. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 961, questioning the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench at Hyderabad in ITA No.226/Hyd/2021 for the assessment year 2015-16. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue would submit that for the present, the registered office of the respondent is at Bangalore. Hence, the appeal is maintainable. 3. It is an admitted fact that the assessment order dated 12.12.2017 is passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 16(2), Hederabad. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in a case reported in (2022) 447 ITR 1 (PCIT v/s ABL PAPERS) has held that the jurisdiction of High Court would be High Court where the assessment order is passed. In the instant case, the assessment order as well as the order by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal is of the Hyderabad.

In view of the above, the appeal would not be maintainable before this Court. With liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate jurisdictional High Court, the appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →