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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more