M/S MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PVT.LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
RP/448/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01033790201527 November 2015Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out to warrant a review. The petitioner's attempt to reopen the matter in the guise of a review was not permissible.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought a review of a High Court order concerning the taxability of payments made for hospital management. The petitioner argued that the court incorrectly stated their dispute regarding the nature of the payment as 'consideration' for using land and infrastructure.

What were the issues?

Whether the payment made for hospital management, styled as a lease for right to manage, administer, and control, constitutes 'consideration' for using land and infrastructure taxable under Section 194-I. Whether a review petition can be used to reargue grounds already considered or to raise new arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194-I

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

REVIEW PETITION NOs.448-449/2015

BETWEEN

M/S MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PVT LTD., 98, RUSTOM BAGH AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE-560 017 REP. BY ITS HEAD-LEGAL SRI M SARAVANAN AGED 50 YEARS SON OF A K MANIVEL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.)

AND

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

NO.59, HMT BHAVAN

4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD

GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME-TAX(TDS)

CIRCLE-18(1)

NO.59, HMT BHAVAN

4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD

GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS

THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:09/03/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/2009 C/W 746/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to review the order passed by this court in ITA No.747/2009 connected with ITA No.746/2009 disposed of on 9.3.2015 on certain grounds, more particularly, with respect to paragraph-22 of the Judgment that the terms of the agreement to make payment towards ‘consideration’ for using the land, building with infrastructure squarely falls under section 194-I of the Act, though styled as lease towards right to manage, administer and control the hospitals, which undoubtedly includes building and infrastructure ‘is not disputed by the assessee’ was, in fact, disputed by the assessee.

3 3. However, now in the course of arguments, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the payment made is towards consideration for using the land, building with infrastructure. The scope of review is limited. No error apparent on the face of the record to review is pointed out by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot reopen the matter in the guise of review and address the very grounds urged and considered, as it is not an appeal in disguise.

4.

If aggrieved, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the Judgment by way of an appeal. The Review is not maintainable, and as such review petitions stand dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AN/-

More judgments on Section 194-I

All 307 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194-I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →