THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CEPHA IMAGING PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/4/2010HC KarnatakaKAHC01009361201022 February 2016Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the subject tax liability was covered by Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the Revenue stated that the appeal was not to be pursued further.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order that confirmed the order of the Appellate Commissioner. The tax liability in question was less than Rs. 20 lakhs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be pursued given the tax liability and the applicability of a circular issued by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

ITA NO.4/2010

BETWEEN

1.

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

BANGALORE.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)

WARD-1(1), BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

AND

M/S. CEPHA IMAGING PVT.LTD., 31, KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL BANGALORE-560 024.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1180/BANG/2008, DATED 24.07.2009 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.1180/Bang/2008.

2.

This matter was considered by this Court on 15.05.2016 and the following order was passed:

“Although matter could have been considered in view of Circular No.21/15 dated 10.12.2015 however, Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks time to

3 get additional details for non-applicability of the circular. Hence, stand over to 22.2.2016.”

3.

Today, Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned Counsel for the Appellants-Revenue states that as conveyed to him by Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned Counsel, as the subject tax liability is less than Rs.20 lakhs, the same would stand covered by Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and hence the appeal is not to be pursued further and he prays that in view of the Circular dated 10.12.2015, the appeal may be disposed of as not pressed.

4.

In view of the aforesaid declaration, the present appeal is disposed of as not pressed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- AN/- 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 →