Case Law › High Court › Rp/1010/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Rp/1010/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Hindustan Infrastructure Projects

High Court 07 Nov 2014 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · karnataka_bng_old

Parties

Date of order

07 Nov 2014

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Rp/1010/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Hindustan Infrastructure Projects, the High Court (2014) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Therefore, that portion ofthe order is deleted.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE | DATED THIS THE 7[th]DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014. PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR..JUSTICK N. KUMA AN D THERE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICEK RAVI MALIMA REVIEW PEIITION NO.10O10 OF 201 INITA NO.66 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1.The Commissioner of Income-tax|C.R.Building, Queens Road,Bangalore — 560 OO1.C.R.Building, Queens Road,Bangalore — 560 OO1. ? The Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-2(1),C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri G.Kamaladhar, Advocate) AND: M/s.Hindustan Infrastructure ProjectsAnd Engg. Pvt. Ltd.,No.1667, 9[th]Main Road, |HAL 3[)1]stage,Bangalore — 560 075. ...RESPONDENT| (By Sri.Parthasarathy, Advocate) KRERE This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1of CPC praying to review the order dated 19.3.2012 —passed in ITA.No.66/2007. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N.Kumar J., made the following:- ORDER This review petition is filed seeking deletion of fourlines in para-3. We have dismissed the appeal following the judgment of this court in the case of the assesseeitself for the earlier years. However, in the end we have observed as follows: “Even otherwise, the net tax effect, which isthesubjectmatter|oT|thisappeal1S Rs.3,42,995/-, which is less than Rs.4.00.lakhs prescribed in Instructions No.2/2005.”. oD In view of the same, that observation is inappropriate and incorrect. Therefore, that portion ofthe order is deleted. To that extent the review petition isallowed. — 3.|orl.Parthasarathy, learned counsel takesnotice for the respondent.| od/-JUDGE. sd/-.JUDGE.JJ|

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our 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.