What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it could not keep the matter pending and dismissed the review petition. However, it granted liberty to the Revenue to seek review if the Supreme Court sets aside the previous order and holds the instruction as prospective.

The Revenue sought to review a High Court order that dismissed their appeal due to a low tax effect, following a previous judgment. They also argued that the appeal to the Supreme Court against the retrospective nature of an instruction should be awaited.

What were the issues?

Whether a review petition should be entertained when the appeal was dismissed based on a precedent and a pending Supreme Court appeal on a related matter.

CIT vs M/S Endeavour Estates (P) Ltd | Karnataka High Court 2012

- - 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. KUMAR A N D THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH REVIEW PETITION No.816/2012 IN ITA No.691/2009 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (3), C R BUIDLING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S ENDEAVOUR ESTATES (P) LTD., NO.25, 3RD FLOOR, “PADMASHREE MANSIONS” 1ST CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003. ... RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED

- - 2 21-03-2012 PASSED IN ITA 691/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS N. KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: - ORDER 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 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 off 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. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to condone the delay. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE NG*

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ENDEAVOUR ESTATES (P) LTD

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments