THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RANGSONS ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD

PDF · subscribers
C.A. No.-017325-017325 - 2017Supreme Court2017 INSC 105927 October 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH2 pages
For Petitioner: ANIL KATIYAR
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of its earlier judgment in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Limited. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue notice to the respondent.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against M/s. Rangsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court decided not to issue notice to the respondent. The Court referred to a previous judgment in a similar matter.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the applicability of a previous Supreme Court judgment to the present case. The court decided to follow its precedent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.17325 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.28673/2017 @ CC NO.16890/2016] THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. RANGSONS ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. Leave granted. 2. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent, since this Court has rendered its Judgment in the relied upon matter on 16.12.2016 [(Civil Appeal No.8498/2013) C.I.T. and Anr. v. M/s. Yokogawa India Limited, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 1]. 3. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the said judgment. 4. Since, notice is not issued to the respondent before this Court, we make it clear that the Assessing Officer will issue notice to the respondent. 1 Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.10.31 18:19:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

5.

We also direct the appellant to serve a copy of this judgment to the respondent. 6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 7. There shall be no orders as to costs. .......................J.

[KURIAN JOSEPH] .......................J.

[R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 27, 2017. 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →