Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 43]

Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Lancy Constructions Holly Family ... on 6 July, 2012

Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath

                              1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

             Dated this the 6th day of July, 2012

                          PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR

                            AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

                     RP No. 735 of 2012

                             IN

                    ITA No. 767 of 2006

BETWEEN:

1.     The Commissioner of Income Tax
       C.R.Building
       Attavara
       Mangalore.

2.     The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
       Circle-2(1)
       Attavara
       Mangalore.                          ...Petitioners

                (By Sri M.Thirumalesh, Adv.)

AND:

M/s. Lancy Consturctions
Holy Family Castle
Nehru Avenue Road
Mangalore.
                                           ...Respondent
                                2

      This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and
2 of CPC praying for review of the order dated 15-02-2012
passed in ITA No.767 of 2006 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:-


                          ORDER

The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 15.2.2012 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 of 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.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE ca