COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/122/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01027913201223 June 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeals with liberty to seek restoration if necessary. This was based on the assessee's submission regarding the monetary limits of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's orders for various assessment years. The assessee contended that the appeals were not maintainable due to monetary limits prescribed in a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeals before the High Court in light of the monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.

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 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2020

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.123 OF 2012 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NOs.122, 124 AND 125 Of 2012

IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.123 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (3) BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. E I SANMATHI., ADV.)

AND:

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,

(IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD., SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH M/S MAHARASHTRA DISTILLERIES LTD., WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED ITS NAME TO M/S SHAW WALLACE DISTILLERIES LTD AND SUBSEQUENTLY GOT MERGED WITH M/S MC DOWELL & COMPANY NOW RENAMED AS M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD) UB TOWERS, 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S.R.ANURADHA, ADV.)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 13.01.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1377/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 PRAYING TO:

ii. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1377/BANG/2010 DATED 13.01.2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.122 OF 2012 BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD,BENGALURU.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (3) BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY SMT. E.I.SANMATHI., ADV.)

AND:

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD., (IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD., SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH M/S MAHARASHTRA DISTILLERIES LTD., WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED ITS NAME TO M/S SHAW WALLACE DISTILLERIES LTD AND SUBSEQUENTLY GOT MERGED WITH M/S MC DOWELL & COMPANY NOW RENAMED AS M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD) UB TOWERS, 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.S.R.ANURADHA, ADV.)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 13.01.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1375/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 PRAYING TO:

ii. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1375/BANG/2010 DATED 13.01.2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.124 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD,BENGALURU.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (3), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY SMT. E.I. SANMATHI., ADV.)

AND:

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD., (IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD., SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH M/S MAHARASHTRA DISTILLERIES LTD., WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED ITS NAME TO M/S SHAW WALLACE DISTILLERIES LTD AND SUBSEQUENTLY GOT MERGED WITH M/S MC DOWELL & COMPANY NOW RENAMED AS M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD) UB TOWERS, 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.S.R.ANURADHA, ADV.)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 13.01.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1378/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 PRAYING TO:

ii. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1378/BANG/2010 DATED 13.01.2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.125 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD,BENGALURU.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (3), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. E.I. SANMATHI., ADV.)

AND:

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD., (IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD., SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH M/S MAHARASHTRA DISTILLERIES LTD., WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED ITS NAME TO M/S SHAW WALLACE DISTILLERIES LTD AND SUBSEQUENTLY GOT MERGED WITH M/S MC DOWELL & COMPANY NOW RENAMED AS M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD)

UB TOWERS, 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.S.R.ANURADHA, ADV.)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 13.01.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1376/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 PRAYING TO:

ii. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1376/BANG/2010 DATED 13.01.2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for appellants - Revenue. Smt. S.R.Anuradha, learned counsel for respondent - assessee.

2.

Learned counsel for assessee submits that the addition in the case is less than Rs.1 crore and in view of the monetary limits prescribed in Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, the appeals are not maintainable.

3.

In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for Revenue seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the appeals with liberty to make a prayer for restoration, if occasion so arises.

With such liberty as sought for by learned counsel for Revenue, the appeals are disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

nvj

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 →