What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no substance in the Revenue's review petition. It held that the grounds presented did not justify a review of the previous order dismissing the appeal.

The Revenue filed a review petition challenging a High Court order that dismissed their appeal due to a low tax effect. The Revenue argued that the earlier judgment and circular were not applicable as the tax effect was recurring.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court's previous order dismissing the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect should be reviewed, considering the recurring nature of the tax effect.

CIT vs M/S Fibres & Fabrics | Karnataka High Court 2013

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2014

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N. KUMAR

AND

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR

REVIEW PETITION No.191 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 5(1), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

….PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. SHYAM SUNDER BHATHIJA, SOUKAT BUILDING, SJP ROAD, BANGALORE.

… RESPONDENT

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.896/2007, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N. KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2 O R D E R

This Review Petition is preferred challenging the order passed by this Court dismissing the appeal –ITA No.896/2007 on 05.11.2012 holding that the net tax effect is less than Rs.10.00 lakhs in terms of Instruction No.3/2011 and reserving liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in the event of the Revenue succeeds in the Supreme Court.

This Review Petition is filed contending that neither the circular nor the judgment of this court passed in I.T.A. No.3191/2005 disposed of on 02.11.2011 (CIT Vs. RANKA & RANKA), is applicable to the facts of this case, as the tax effect in this case is recurring in nature. We do not see any substance in the said petition. Therefore, we do not see any justification to review the order. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.

Petitioner’s counsel is permitted to carry-out necessary corrections to remove the office objections.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE KGR*

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S FIBRES & FABRICS

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments