Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
NO.59, HMT BHAVAN
4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD
GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE.
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.
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.
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/-