Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. M/Sranka And Ranka, Ita
High Court
06 Jul 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. M/Sranka And Ranka, Ita
Date of order
06 Jul 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. M/Sranka And Ranka, Ita, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Ranka and Ranka, in the event of the Apex Courtsetting 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.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 6[th]day of July, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
RP No. 754 ot 2012
IN
ITA No. 1115 of JOO0
BETWEEN:
1.Commissioner ot Income TaxC.R.BuildingMangalore.C.R.BuildingMangalore.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxTDS CircleTDS Circle
Mangalore.
...Petitioners
(By Sri E.I. Sanmathi, Adv.)
AND:
M/s. City CorporaticMangalore.
... Respond
This Review Petition is tiled under Order 47 Rule 1 and2 of CPC praying for review of the order dated 01-03-2012passed in ITA No.1115 of 2006 on the file of the Hon’ble HighCourt of Karnataka, Bangalore.
This Review Petition coming on for orders this day,N KUMARJ9made the following:-
ORDER
The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed bythis Court on 22.92.2012 whereunder this Court dismissethe appeal on the ground that the net tax effect which is thesubject matter of the appeal was less than Rs.10,00,000/-,by following the judgment of this Court in the case ofTHE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER vs M/SRANKA AND RANKA, ITA No. 3191/2005|disposed of on92,11.2011
2. It is submitted that the revenue is preferring anappeal against the order passed by this Court holding thatthe instruction No. 3/2011 is retrospective in nature andtherefore they submit that this petition has to await thedecision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid appeal to be filed.
3. On that ground it is not possible to Keep thismatter pending. All that we can do is, as the appeal isidismissed following the judgment in the aforesaid case ofM/s. Ranka and Ranka, in the event of the Apex Courtsetting 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
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue