COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MR.SHAW WALLACE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/118/2014HC KarnatakaKAHC01012749201409 October 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal. Liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the appeal if the case falls under the exceptions mentioned in the relevant CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in a CBDT circular, making the appeal potentially not maintainable.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of the appeal before the High Court in light of the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.118 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS

QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND:

MR. SHAW WALLACE BREWERIES LTD., UB TOWERS, 6TH FLOOR, 24 VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04-10-2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.825/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, PRAYING TO:

I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. II. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04-10-2013 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.825/BANG/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee.

2.

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than `1 Crore and therefore, the appeal may not be maintainable in view of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the

appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 08.08.2019.

4.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →