COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CITY CORPORATIC
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the review petition, stating that the matter could not be kept pending. However, they granted the Revenue liberty to seek a review if the Apex Court overturns the Ranka and Ranka judgment.
What were the facts?
The Revenue sought to review a High Court order that dismissed their appeal due to a low tax effect. The Revenue also intended to appeal the High Court's decision on the retrospective nature of Instruction No. 3/2011.
What were the issues?
Whether the review petition could be kept pending awaiting a decision from the Apex Court on a related matter, and the retrospective applicability of Instruction No. 3/2011.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
N/A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 6th day of July, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH RP No. 754 of 2012 IN ITA No. 1115 of 2006 BETWEEN: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax C.R.Building Mangalore. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Circle Mangalore. …Petitioners (By Sri E.I. Sanmathi, Adv.) AND: M/s. City Corporatic Mangalore. …Respondent
2 This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying for review of the order dated 01-03-2012 passed in ITA No.1115 of 2006 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N KUMAR J., made the following:- O R D E R The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 22.2.2012 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 of 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. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ca
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026