SRI KIRAN KUMAR GADIA vs. SRI V SUJENDRA

PDF · subscribers
HRRP/78/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01025131201305 June 2013Bench: H.G.RAMESH3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. This was based on a CBDT circular stating that appeals with a tax effect below ₹1 Crore are not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The assessee is an educational society. The appeal was filed for the Assessment Year 2006-07.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated by a CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.78 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

1.

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS

QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

2.

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E)

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS No.1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S AL AMEEN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY NO.38, NEW COLLEGE BUILDING HOSUR ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE BANGALORE-560005. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.) - - -

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.09.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.575/BANG/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN.

(I) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.575/BANG/2011 DATED 28-09-2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS NO.1, QUEEN’S ROAD.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Chythanya K.K., learned counsel for the assessee.

2.

Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than `1 Crore and therefore, the appeal may not be maintainable in the light of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

3.

Learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the tax effect is less than `1 Crore and in view of the aforesaid circular, the appeal is not maintainable.

4.

Accordingly, in view of the circular dated 08.08.2019, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE RV

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 →