Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.' (2018) 404 Itr 0001 (Sc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR REVIEW PETITION NO.324 OF 2022 --IN ITA NO.219220/2011 (TIT) BETWEEN: M/S. I.G. PETROCHEMICALS LTD D-4, JYOTHI COMPLEX, 134/1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI NIKUNJ DHANUKA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SON OF SRI S.S. DHANUKA. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI A. GANESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE & SRI CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(4), C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT - - - THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/08/2021 IN ITA NO. 219/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-2006 AND 2006-2007; CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER MADE IN THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AS WELL AS IN QUESTION NOS.(a) AND (b) OF THE INCOME TAX APPEAL U/S 260A OF THE ACT (ITA NO. 219/2011 FOR AYS 2005-2006 AND 2006-2007) AND MAY PASS A SPEAKING ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE SAME. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Mr. A Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel for the Mr. S.Parthasarathi, learned counsel and Miss Junitha Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the judgment dated 4.08.2021 passed by this Court in I.T.A. No.219/2011 is already been assailed by the appellant in SLP (C) No.000660-000661/2022 had issued notice on 31.01.2022. 3. It is further submitted that the controversy involved in this review petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.' (2018) 404 ITR 0001 (SC). 4. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that, the impugned Judgment neither suffers from jurisdictional infirmity nor from any error apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of review jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE HR