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 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Pr. Commissioner vs M/S.Mphasis Ltd on 13 January, 2023

Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, V Srishananda

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                       PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                         AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

            REVIEW PETITION NO.325/2022
                         IN
           INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.62/2018

BETWEEN:

1.   THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4
     C.R. BUILDINGS,
     QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     OF INCOME TAX RANGE -12
     BANGALORE.
                                        ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. MPHASIS LTD.,
ABACUS SQUARE,
BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, WING-A, WTC-3,
K.R. PURAM, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD,
MAHADEVAPURA,
BENGALURU-560048
PAN-AAACB6820C
                                      ...RESPONDENT
                                     2



       THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PRAYING
TO REVIEW JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2021 IN ITA NO.62 OF
2018 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER-
APPELLANT TO BE HEARD INDEPENDENTLY AFRESH; AND
ETC.


       THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS     DAY,    P.S.    DINESH          KUMAR,        J.,   MADE   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                    ORDER

Shri E.I. Sanmathi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue/Review Petitioners submits that this Review Petition is filed because questions No.1 & 2 have not been considered.

2. On perusal, it is seen that the said questions have been considered in assessee's own case and are held against the Revenue in ITA Nos.263-264 of 2014, decided on 20.07.2015.

3. In view of the above, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record to review the Judgment dated 24.02.2021.

3

Resultantly, this Review Petition is unnecessary and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE PL*