THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHYAM SUNDER R BATHIJA

PDF · subscribers
WTA/85/2006HC KarnatakaKAHC01043920200618 December 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,K.NATARAJAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the submission made by the appellants' counsel regarding the maintainability of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The appellants' counsel submitted that the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Wealth Tax appeal before the High Court due to monetary limits and a CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 27-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.85 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C. R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX CIRCLE-5(1), BENGALURU. ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K. V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI SHYAM SUNDER R. BATHIJA BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT

THIS WEALTH TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 27-A OF WEALTH TAX ACT 1957, ARISING OUT

2 OF ORDER DATED 21.04.2006 PASSED IN WTA NO. 81/BANG/2005, PRAYING TO

FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH, IN WTA NO. 81/BANG/2005 DATED: 21.04.2006 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE-5(1),BENGALURU AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

*****

THIS WEALTH TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the monetary limits and also in terms of Circular No.3 of 2018, dated

3 11.07.2018, passed by Director (ITJ), Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi.

2.

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

Sd/-

Sd/- JUDGE

JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →