The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.GMR Holding Pvt Ltd

ITTA/184/2010HC TelanganaHBHC01039810201010 February 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The court referred to CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024, which amended Circular No. 5 of 2024 and enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Income Tax Department to reduce litigation. The circular fixed the monetary limit for filing an appeal before the High Court at Rs. 2.00 crore. In the present case, the tax effect was well below this prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed in terms of the aforesaid circular. The court also noted that if the appeal fell within any exception of Circular No. 5 of 2024, the Income Tax Department could seek revival of the appeal. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The appeal challenged an order dated 13.02.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench 'B', for the Assessment Year 2002-03. The ITAT's order was in relation to an appeal preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV, Hyderabad, which in turn was against the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad. The respondent is M/s. GMR Holding Pvt Ltd, successor to Varalakshmi Investments Pvt Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the High Court, considering the monetary limits prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for filing appeals. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the assessee's side regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The entire decision hinges on the Revenue's appeal and the applicability of the CBDT circular. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue filed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's argument for filing the appeal, but it implies they sought to challenge the ITAT's order. However, the court's decision is based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

13447 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 184 OF 2010 AppealfiledunderSection260(A)ofthelncome-TaxAct'againsttheorder daled.13-02-2009passedinlTA.No.2o9&1137lHydl2006(ASSeSSmentyear 2oo2-03\ on the file of the lncome TaX Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench .8,, Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated: 12-01-2006 passed , in Appeal No.296/CC-3/ClT(A)-lv/05-06) on the file of the commrssioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)lV,HyderabadpreferredagainsttheAssessmentorderdated:28-03-2005 passed in GIR No./PAN No. V210lCC-3 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad. Between: ThecommissioneroflncomeTax,[PresentAuthoritywithJurisdictionover_the .rtt"r1 Olo.a"ngalore-|, Central Revenue Building' Queens Road; Bangalore - 560 oo1 "'APPELLANT AND M/s'GMRHoldingPvtLtd,[SuccessortoVaralakshmilnvestmentsPLtdSince e.1gJrr"t"Ot danalore Olo.O-g-eOelt, G2, Greenlands' Begumpet' Hyderabad - 16. ffi pt"."ntly 2511, Skip House, Museum Road' Banalore-560025 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, JUNIOR S'C' REP' FOR Mr. J.V.PRASAD, SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent: SRI C. V. NARASIMHAM The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HoNOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSING ITAO NANDTKONDA ITTA No.I84 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justicc p.Sam Koshy) Heard Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior iitanding Counsel lepresenting Mr. J.V.Prasad, leamed Senior Sitanding Counsel for the lncome Tax Department for the appellant. perused the record. 2. Thir; appeal under Section 260A of the Income fax Act, 1961, has; been preferred by the Revenue as the appellant against the c,rder dated 13.02.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate f ,ibunal, Hyderabad Bench ,B,, Hyderabad, I.T.A.No. l79r l1ydl2008 for the Assessment year 2002-03. ln I t 3. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBD'I) has issued Circular No.9 of 2l)24 dated, 17.09.2024, amending the previous Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024, by further enhancing the nronetary lirnits for filing, appeals by the Income Tax Department before the Income 1-ax /.ppellate Tribunals, High Courts and Suprerre Court t I

2 as a measure for reducing litigation' In- paragraph 2 of the said Circular, we find that the monetary limit fixed for filing an appeal before the High Court is Rs'2'00 crore' 4. [n the instant appeal, tax effect is well below the monetary limit. 5. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid Circular No-9 of 2024 dated 17'09'2024' However, if tire appeal comes within the exception of Circutar No.5 of 2024, it would be open to the Income Tax Department to seek revival of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs' 6. Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions pending' if any' shall tand closed. 5 Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)lV, Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax' Central Circle-3, Hyderabad 4. One CC to Sri J. V. Prasad, Senior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri C. V. Narasimham, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Plp/gh To, w

HIGH COURT DATED:1010212025 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.184 of 2010 DISMISSING THE APPEAL i' 2025 gO I ,1' i' .-- !',t: ll I I '-.r'a,--,\r, f ?_o t * bI \

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →