What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no justification to review the order itself. However, it granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if the Supreme Court's decision in a related matter was in their favor.

The Revenue filed a review petition to modify a previous High Court order that dismissed their appeal. The dismissal was based on a precedent judgment, and the Revenue sought liberty to revive their appeal if the Supreme Court ruled in their favor in a related case.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue should be granted liberty to revive their appeal based on a future Supreme Court judgment, even though such liberty was not explicitly reserved in the original order.

The Commmissioner of Income-Tax vs M/S A S Chinnaswamy Raju | Karnataka High Court 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 17th day of April, 2015 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA R.P.No.1266/2014 IN ITA No. 45/2007

BETWEEN:

The Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle-2(1), C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

...PETITIONERS

(By Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, Adv.)

AND:

M/s A.S.Chinnaswamy Raju Brothers Family Trust, No.294, 16th Cross, Upper Palace Orchards, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore.

…RESPONDENT

This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC praying to review the order dated 28.10.2013 passed in

2 ITA No.45/2007, 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

This review petition is filed to review the order dated 28.10.2013 passed in ITA.No.45/2007.

The appeal came to be dismissed by this Court following the judgment in CIT vs. Ranka and Ranka in I.T.A.No.3191/2003 decided on 02.11.2011.

The grievance is, the revenue has preferred an appeal against the said judgment of this Court. In all the cases, when the appeals came to be dismissed following the said judgment, liberty was reserved to the revenue to seek for revival of the appeal in the event of Apex Court holding in favour of the revenue. Such liberty is not reserved in this case. Therefore, they have filed this review petition.

In the facts of the case, we do not see any justification to review the order except reserving liberty to the

3 revenue to seek for revival in the event of the judgment of the Apex Court in their favour.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ckl/-

THE COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S A S CHINNASWAMY RAJU

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments