M/S TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
RP/95/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01000222202109 December 2022Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in the previous judgment. Therefore, the court decided not to interfere with its earlier order in the exercise of its review jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner filed a review petition seeking to review a previous judgment passed by the High Court in ITA No.101/2016. The review was filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC.

What were the issues?

Whether there are sufficient grounds to review a previously passed judgment due to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 114

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

RP No.95 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 95 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. M/S TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS TATA HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY CO. PVT. LTD) 45, JUBILEE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD BENGALURU-560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SANDEEP SINGH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O SRI JOGINDER SINGH JOGI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-12(4) NO.14/3, 4TH FLOOR RASTROTHANABHAVAN (OPP.RBI), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

RP No.95 of 2021

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/11/2020 PASSED IN ITA NO.101/2016. PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO BE GRANTED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 20.11.2020 passed in ITA No.101/2016.

2.

After hearing learned counsel for the PARTIES, the order of which review is sought does not suffer from any infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this court in exercise of review jurisdiction.

- 3 -

RP No.95 of 2021

Accordingly, the re-view petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SS

More judgments on Section 114

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 114 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →