THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S THE JAYANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/785/2008HC KarnatakaKAHC01037749200804 December 2013Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that based on its previous judgment in Ranka and Ranka, the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival if the Supreme Court reverses the precedent.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court challenging an order of the ITAT. The net tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal with a tax effect below a certain threshold is maintainable, considering CBDT instructions and their retrospective application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- - - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.785 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

1.

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

2.

The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), C.R. Building, Queens Road Bangalore.

.. APPELLANTS

(By Sri G. Kamaladhar, Adv.)

AND:

M/s. The Jayanagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., No.902, 8th Main Road, 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore

..RESPONDENT

(By Sri. S. Parthasarathi, Adv.)

This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 19-03-2008 passed in ITA

- - - 2 - No.555/Bang/2007, for the Assessment Year 2003-04, praying that for the reasons stated therein this Hon'ble Court may be pleased 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.555/Bang/2007 dated 19- 03-2008 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity.

This Appeal coming on for admission this day, KUMAR J., delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal.

2.

The net tax effect, which is the subject matter of this appeal, is less than Rs.10 lakhs.

3.

In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Another –vs- Ranka and Ranka reported in 2012(72) DTR (Kar) 270, wherein it was held that notwithstanding Clause 11 of CBDT Instruction No.3 of 2011 dated 9th February 2011, expressly providing that the instructions will apply to appeals filed on or after 9th February 2011 and appeals filed earlier will be governed by

- - - 3 - contemporaneous instructions, the application of said instructions needs to be extended to appeals pending as on 9th February 2011. In other words, the said instruction was held to be retrospective. In view of the said instructions, this appeal preferred by the Revenue where the tax effect is less than Rs.10 lakhs, is not maintainable. However, it is submitted that the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of this Court before the Apex Court. Hence, in the event of the Apex Court reversing the said judgment, liberty is reserved to the Revenue to seek for revival of this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

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 →