Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- - 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.811/2012 IN ITA No.783/2009 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-11 (3), C R BUIDLING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S GANGAGEN BIOTECHNOLOGIES P LTD., NO.5AC, 705, II BLOCK, HENNUR ROAD, BANASWADI LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 080. ... RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21-03-2012 PASSED IN ITA 783/2009, ON THE
- - 2 FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. 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 3. On that ground it is not possible to keep this matter pending. All that we can do is, as the appeal is 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. Accordingly, I.A.2/2012 for condonation of delay is also dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE NG*