COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MC DOWELL AND CO LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeal. It granted liberty to the revenue to revive the appeal if the matter fell within the exceptions mentioned in the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals.
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. The revenue sought liberty to revive the appeal if exceptions applied.
What were the issues?
Whether the High Court should entertain an appeal filed by the revenue when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The applicability of CBDT circulars to binding the revenue.
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.180 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.189/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, PRAYING TO:
2 I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12-10-2012 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BANGLORE IN ITA NO.189/BANG/2011, 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 Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026