COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI K SATHYASHANKAR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the recurring nature of a tax liability does not exempt it from the monetary limit prescribed for preferring an appeal. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's contention and dismissed the review petition.
What were the facts?
The Revenue sought to review a High Court order that dismissed their appeal due to a net tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue argued that the recurring nature of the tax liability made the instruction inapplicable.
What were the issues?
Whether the recurring nature of a tax liability overrides the monetary limit for filing an appeal. Applicability of monetary limits prescribed by instructions for appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH RP No. 321 of 2012 IN ITA No. 394 of 2008 BETWEEN: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Buildings Attavara Mangalore 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore …Petitioners (By Sri E. R. Indrakumar for Sri E. I. Sanmathi, Advocates) AND: Sri K. Sathyashankar Proprietor
2 M/s. Praveen Tyres Darbe, Puttur D.K. 574 202 …Respondent This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying for review of the order dated 21-03-2012 in ITA No.394/2008, 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 21.3.2012 whereunder this Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the net tax effect was less than Rs.4,00,000/-, as instruction No. 2/2005 prescribes a monetary limit of Rs.4,00,000/- for preferring an appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that the net tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs.4,00,000/-. But, the contention is that this liability of payment of tax is recurring in nature and therefore the instruction is not applicable. Therefore, they seek for review of the order passed by this Court.
3 3. We do not see any merit in the said contention. As long as the tax liability is less than Rs.4,00,000/-, merely because it is of a recurring nature, is no ground to deny the benefit of the said circular to the assessee. In fact, it is clear that the principles of res judicata is not attracted to tax jurisprudence which is also made manifest by Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ckl
More judgments on Section 268A
- Income Tax Officer, Ajmer vs Hemant Kumar Sharma, AjmerITA 1506/JPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Indore vs Aashta Doshi, IndoreITA 789/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs Khushal Madhavlal Darji, AhmedabadITA 82/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs Hemantkumar Faljibhai Chaudhary, MehsanaITA 475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Dy. CIT-4(1), Indore vs Kiran Bajpai, IndoreITA 426/IND/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026