What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the review petition, stating the matter could not be kept pending. However, they granted liberty to the Revenue to seek a review if the Supreme Court overturned the Ranka and Ranka judgment.

The Revenue sought to review a High Court order that dismissed their appeal due to a low tax effect. They also argued that the appeal should await a Supreme Court decision on the retrospective nature of Instruction No. 3/2011.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court order dismissing the appeal based on tax effect should be reviewed, and if the current proceedings should be adjourned pending a Supreme Court decision on the retrospective application of an instruction.

CIT vs Smt Kamala Ebenezer | Karnataka High Court 2012

- - 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. KUMAR A N D THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH REVIEW PETITION No.815/2012 IN ITA No.191/2010 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) C R BUIDLING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: SMT. KAMALA EBENEZER, FLAT NO.001, MARIA RESIDENCY NO.101, WHEELER ROAD EXTENSION COOKIE TOWN BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED 21-03-2012 PASSED IN ITA 191/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

- - 2 THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS N. KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: - ORDER The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 21.3.2012 whereunder this Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the net tax effect which is the subject matter of the appeal was less than Rs.10,00,000/- by following the judgment of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. RANKA AND RANKA, ITA No.3191/2005 disposed off on 2.11.2011. 2. It is submitted that the revenue is preferring an appeal against the order passed by this Court holding that the instruction No.3/2011 is retrospective in nature and therefore they submit that this petition has to await the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid appeal to be filed. 3. On that ground it is not possible to keep this matter pending. All that we can do is, as the appeal is

- - 3 dismissed following the judgment in the aforesaid case of M/s. Ranka and Ranka, in the event of the Apex Court setting aside the said order and holding it as prospective, then it is open to the revenue to seek for review of the order. Reserving such liberty, this petition is dismissed. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to condone the delay. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE NG*

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT KAMALA EBENEZER

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments