M/s. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
RP/163/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01040956202024 June 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 impugned judgment. Therefore, the Court held that interference in review jurisdiction was not warranted.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, IBM India Pvt. Ltd., filed a review petition seeking to review a judgment passed in an earlier appeal. The review was sought for specific substantial questions of law and findings in the previous judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the previous judgment suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record, justifying a review of the decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 114

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO.163 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

M/s. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD., No. 12, SUBRAMANYA ARCADE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 029. ...PETITIONER (By SMT. VANI H., ADV. H)

AND 1 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

LTU, C.R.BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU.

2 . THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE-11(1), C.R.BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O RESPONDENTS )

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO. I) TO REVIEW JUDGMENT DATED 03/11/2020 PASSED IN THE ABOVE ITA NO. 392/2011 ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AT SL. NOS. 4 AND 5 AND FINDINGS IN PARAGRAPH 4, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. II) ANY SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEMED FIT AND JUST.

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

ORDER

Ms.Vani.H., learned counsel for the petitioner.

This review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 3.11.2020 passed in ITA No.392/2011.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the impugned judgment neither suffers from any infirmity nor any error

3 apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference of this Court in the review jurisdiction.

In the result, review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

JY/-

More judgments on Section 114

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 114 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →