PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SRI. H.S. ABDUL HAFEEZ SAYEED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/508/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01051835201705 November 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,BELLUNKE A.S3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the submission of 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 learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court based on monetary limits and 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 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.508 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6

BMTC COMPLEX

KORMANGALA

BENGALURU.

2.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2)

BENGALURU.

… APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI.H.S.ABDUL HAFEEZ SAYEED PROPRIETOR: M/S.ORIENTAL GRANITES

NO.6410, A-1-HABEED SHANKARMUTT ROAD HASSAN PAN: AELPS 6817 A

…RESPONDENT

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.01.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.42/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO 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 ORDER DATED 13.01.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.42/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

*****

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.

2.

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

Sd/- Sd/-

JUDGE JUDGE

Prs*

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 →