THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HUTCHINSON AND CO (INDIA) P. LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/296/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01037004201231 August 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was not pressed by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The respondent submitted that the tax effect was less than ₹1 Crore, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified 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 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

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

I.T.A. NO.296 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE.

2.

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

WARD-12(4), NEW DELHI.

3.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.)

AND:

M/S. HUTCHINSON & CO., (INDIA) P. LTD., GROUND FLOOR, NO.37/5 AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560042. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.,) - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30-03-2012

PASSED IN ITA NO.700/DEL/2003, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.700/DEL/2003 DATED 30-03-2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(4), NEW DELHI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

JUDGMENT

Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Chythanya K.K., learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

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

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the tax effect is less than `1 Crore and in

view of the aforesaid circular, the appeal is not maintainable.

4.

Accordingly, in view of the circular dated 08.08.2019, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

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 →