COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MC DOWELL AND CO LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court acknowledged the CBDT circular regarding tax effect. The appeal was disposed of with liberty granted to the Revenue to revive it if it falls under the exceptions of the 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 not maintainable.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable in light of the CBDT circular on tax effect thresholds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.181 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(3), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: Mc. DOWELL & CO. LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,) UB TOWERS, NO.24 VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURYANARAYANA T, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 12-10-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.190/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, PRAYING TO:
2 I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.190/BANG/2011 DATED 12-10-2012, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR 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 Rs.1 Crore and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the
3 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 RV
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026