High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 04 KL CK 0004

Patspin India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 April 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J · B.P. Ray, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Review Petition No''s. 947 of 2011 and 27, 74, 153 and 171 of 2012 in IT Appeal No''s. 49, 67, 75, 89 and 146 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 262 words

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.—These review petitions are filed for reviewing the common judgment rendered in the income tax appeals filed by the assessee. The only ground raised by the review petitioners is that this Court did not take into account a subsequent decision of the Karnataka High Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu. Jss Towers. BSK III Stage Bangalore and The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(5), C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore and Others Vs. M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., Plot No. 96, 3rd Cross Electronics City Complex, Hosur Road, Bangalore - 560 100 and Others etc. etc. . Learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the earlier decision of the Karnataka High Court is referred to by this Court and when assessee''s counsel challenged the correctness of the said decision, this Court independently considered the matter with reference to the amended provisions of the Act, and so much so, another decision of the Karnataka High Court to the contrary does not offer a ground for review. After hearing both sides, what we notice is that we have in our own way considered the scope of amended provisions and so much so the decision rendered by us is not based on the earlier decision of the Karnataka High Court. So much so, in effect, these review petitions are virtually another appeals against the judgment rendered in appeals, wherein we have confirmed the Tribunal''s orders. We do not find any mistake or any other ground warranting interference in the judgment in review proceedings.

2.

Consequently, these review petitions are dismissed.