THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S BRITISH ENGINES (INDIA)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court accepted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal 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 and a CBDT circular.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court based on monetary limits and administrative circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BELLUNKE
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.301 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING
80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA
BENGALURU – 560 095.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-11(2), PRESENT ADDRESS
CIRCLE-1(1)(2)
2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING
80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA
BENGALURU – 560 095.
… APPELLANTS (BY SRI.ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S.BRITISH ENGINES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED NO.6A, ATTIBELE INDUSTRIES AREA
BENGALURU – 560 085 PAN: AABCB 5956A
…RESPONDENT
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 06.11.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.1454/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO.1454/BANG/2010 DATED 06.11.2017 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BENGALURU AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
*****
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the monetary limits and also in terms of Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 passed by Director (ITJ), Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi.
In view of the submission made, the appeal is dismissed as such.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal itself, I.A.No.1 of 2018 for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the appeal does not arise for consideration.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
Prs*
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