Ita/16/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd
High Court
19 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Ita/16/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd
Date of order
19 Mar 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Ita/16/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellants to revive thisappeal in case the tax effect is more than.41 Crore.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF MARCH 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND|
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA|
LT.A. NO.16 OF JZO1L
BEI|WEEN
1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A)
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE.
2).THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-6(3), MUMBAT.
3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE-11(4), C.R. BUILDINGS
QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.)
AND"
M/S. INGERSOLL RAND (INDIA) LTD.,.SOLITAIRE CORPORATE PARK-IVUNIT NOS.411 & 412, I FLOOR|ANDHERI-KURLA ROADANDHERI (E), MUMBAI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYAN, ADV.)
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.8.2010|PASSED IN ITA NO.3952/MUM/2005, FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2001-02, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL|QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ALLOW THE APPEAL|AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT,|BANGALORE IN ITA NO.3952/MUM/2005 DATED 30-8-2010|ANDCONFIRMING THE|ORDER.OF|THE|APPELLAIECOMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE!ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1),MUMBAI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,|ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue.
Mr.|.suryanarayana,jiearnedcounsel]for.tne|respondent.
2. Learned counsel! for the respondent submits thatthe tax effect in this appeal is less than41 Crore andtnerefore, the appeal may not be maintainable in view ofthe Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission, learnedcounsel for the appellants submits that he be granted
liberty to revive the appeal in case the tax effect is morethan|=1 Crore.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellants to revive thisappeal in case the tax effect is more than.41 Crore.
Sd/-JUDGE
Sd/-"JUDGE
RY|
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