M/S KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORP LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/797/2009HC KarnatakaKAHC01085291200909 October 2015Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a related appeal filed by the assessee challenging the original ITAT order had been partly allowed. Therefore, the High Court deemed the current appeal against the rejection of the rectification petition as unnecessary.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a miscellaneous petition before the ITAT for rectification of a previous order. The ITAT rejected this petition. The assessee then filed an appeal before the High Court against the ITAT's order rejecting the rectification application.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT erred in not rectifying its order under Section 254(2) and whether the rectification amounted to a review. The court also considered the issue of set-off of carry forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation against business income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2),Section 260-A,Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA No. 797 OF 2009 (IT)

BETWEEN :

M/s.Karnataka Instrade Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Sri. M.R.Seetharam (formerly known as M/s.Karnataka Minerals & Manufacturing Co Ltd.,) No.1, GEF Administrative Block, New BEL Road, MSRIT Post, Bangalore – 560054. …Appellant (By Sri. A.Shankar & M.Lava Advs.,)

AND:

The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore – 560001. …Respondent (By Sri. K.V.Aravind & Sri. G.Kamaladhar, Advs.,)

This ITA is filed U/S.260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated: 31-07-2009 passed in MP No.33/Bng/09 in ITA.No.855/Bang/2008, for the Assessment Year 2002-03, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

i. Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, ii. Allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in MP No.33/Bng/09 in ITA No.855/Bang/2008, dated: 31-07-2009, in the interest of justice and equity.

This Appeal is coming on for hearing and reserved for orders on 08/09/2015, this day B.MANOHAR J,. pronounced the following:

JUDGMENT

The assessee preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) being aggrieved by the order dated 31-07-2009 rejecting the Miscellaneous Petition No.33(BNG)/09 and confirming the order dated 6-2-2009 made in ITA No.855/Bang/2008 for the assessment year 2002-03 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench–A, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short)

3 whereby the Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous Petition filed for correction of the order.

2.

The assessee had filed a Miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal for rectification of the mistake under Section 254(2) of the Act. The said application was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 31-07-2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

3.

The appeal was admitted on 08-11-2010 on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not rectifying its order under Section 254(2) on the facts and circumstances of the case?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the rectification of its own order amounts to review when the Apex Court has taken a view in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange reported in 305 ITR 227 on the facts and circumstances of the case?

(iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to set-off of carry forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation against business income assessed under Section 41(1) on the facts and circumstances of the case?

4.

Since the appeal filed by the assessee before this Court in ITA No.339/2009 wherein the order dated 6-2-2009 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.855/Bang/2008 was challenged is partly allowed, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of this case. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as having become unnecessary.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-*

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 →