COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S RENAISSANCE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/349/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01032007201324 October 2019Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not maintainable due to monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court in light of the monetary limits stipulated by CBDT circulars.

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

ON THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.349 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12(4) BENGALURU. ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND: M/S. RENAISSANCE HOLDINGS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED NO.50, (OLD NO.34) RENAISSANCE LANDMARK 17TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560 055. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18.02.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.834/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN; SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 18.02.2013 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.834/BANG/2012 DATED 18.02.2013 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

*****

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the monetary limits in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 passed by Director (ITJ), Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi.

2.

In view of the submission made, the appeal is dismissed as such.

Sd/-

Sd/- JUDGE

JUDGE

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 →