Jai Hind Cycle Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P.-1, Hyderabad
[Citation -2016-LL-1021-1]

Citation 2016-LL-1021-1
Appellant Name Jai Hind Cycle Company Ltd.
Respondent Name Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P.-1, Hyderabad
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/10/2016
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags substantial question law
Bot Summary: The only point canvassed at the hearing is that the income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been decided by the High Court without framing any substantial question of law. This, the appellant contends, is impermissible on the basis of several decisions of this Court including the one in M.Janardhana Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2 SCC 324. Having perused the said order of the Court, we are of the view that the High Court Signature Not Verified ought to have framed the substantial question(s) Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2016.10.24 16:19:31 IST Reason: of law arising in the appeal before answering the same. The High Court having not done that, we set 2 aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for a de novo consideration after formulating the substantial question(s) of law arising, if any. The order of the High Court dated 16.07.2014 is set aside. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.


IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10235 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3188 of 2015) JAI HIND CYCLE COMPANY LTD., HYDERABAD ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P. -1, HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. only point canvassed at hearing is that income tax appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been decided by High Court without framing any substantial question of law. This, appellant contends, is impermissible on basis of several decisions of this Court including one in M.Janardhana Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2005) 2 SCC 324. 3. Having perused said order of Court, we are of view that High Court Signature Not Verified ought to have framed substantial question(s) Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2016.10.24 16:19:31 IST Reason: of law arising in appeal before answering same. High Court having not done that, we set 2 aside order passed by High Court and remand matter to High Court for de novo consideration after formulating substantial question(s) of law arising, if any. 4. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on merits of case. 5. appeal is disposed of in above terms. order of High Court dated 16.07.2014 is set aside. ....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) NEW DELHI OCTOBER 21, 2016 3 ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3188/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/07/2014 in ITA No. 58/2001 passed by High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh) JAI HIND CYCLE COMPANY LTD., HYDERABAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P. -1, HYDERABAD Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 21/10/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Liz Mathew, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Leave granted. appeal is disposed of in terms of signed order. (Neetu Khajuria) (Asha Soni) Court Master Court Master (Signed order is placed on file.) Jai Hind Cycle Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P.-1, Hyderabad
Report Error