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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more