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 2]

Karnataka High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs M/S. Sri. H P Sathyanarayana Gupta on 22 June, 2012

Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE


             Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2012

                           PRESENT


           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR

                              AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH


                      RP No. 236 of 2012

                              IN

                      ITA No. 252 of 2010

BETWEEN:

1.     Commissioner of Income Tax-III
       Central Revenue Buildings
       Queens Road
       Bangalore-560 001

2.     The Deputy Commissioner of
       Income Tax
       Circle1(1)
       Mysore                               ...Petitioners

                  (By Sri E. R. Indrakumar for
                 Sri E. I. Sanmathi, Advocates)
AND:

M/s. H.P. Sathyanarayana Gupta
Proprietor
                               2




Sri Balaji Agro Traders
No.267/D/1, Deshika Road
Mysore                                    ...Respondent


      This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2
of CPC praying for review of the order dated 03-11-2011 in ITA
No.252/2010, 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 3.11.2011 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 3 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. 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 ckl