PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. SRI. H.S. ABDUL HAFEEZ SAYEED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/509/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01051874201705 November 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,BELLUNKE A.S3 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.

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. This submission was based on monetary limits and a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court, considering the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 5TH 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.509 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

2.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1[2] BENGALURU

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. H.S. ABDUL HAFEEZ SAYEED PROP: M/S. ORIENTAL GRANITES, NO.6410, A-1-HABEEB, SHANKARMUTT ROAD HASSAN

... RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.01.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.45/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PRAYING TO [1] DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED: 13.01.2017 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU, AS SOUGHT, FOR IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.45/BANG/2014 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

J U D G M E N T

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.

2.

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

Sd/-

Sd/-

JUDGE

JUDGE

AN/-

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 →