Skip to main content

Income Tax: Seat of Tribunal to decide which Appellate Court has jurisdiction

In CIT Vs M/s. Sungard Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd before the Bombay High Court, the dispute was that on 8.9.2015, an order was passed under Section 127 of the Act transferring the respondent assessee's case from an Assessing Officer at Banglore to an Assessing Officer at Pune. Thereafter an appeal was filed by the Revenue before the Bombay High Court against the said order. The respondents however objected that the impugned order dated has been passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal from the order of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal would lie before the Karnataka High Court and  not before this Court. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon Chapter XX of the Act and, in particular Section 260A and 269 of the Act. Incidentally, the contention of the applicant was supported by judgements of Delhi High Court in  CIT Vs. Sahara India Financial Corp.
Ltd.1 and CIT Vs. AAR Bee Industries while the respondents cited decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Motorola India Ltd and Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT V.s J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd

The Bombay High Court disagreeing with the decision of the Delhi High Court and agreeing with the decisions of Punjab & Calcutta High Court held that the applicability of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act is only restricted to the authorities listed under Section 116 of the Act and will not govern the jurisdiction of the High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court would be decided on application of Sections 260A and 269 of the Act.

Section 127 of the Act can only govern / control the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities as defined in Section 116 of the Act. Therefore, the appeals from the order of the Tribunal to the High Court would be governed by section 260-A and 269 of the Act.

In the facts of this case, on the bare examination of the provisions, it would be clear that in case of orders passed by the Banglore Bench of the Tribunal, appeal from such orders would lie only to the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more