Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax–15 v. M Modal Global Services Pvt. Ltd - 2019-LL-0911-76

Citation	2019-LL-0911-76
Appellant Name	Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax–15
Respondent Name	M Modal Global Services Pvt. Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	11/09/2019
Judgment	View Judgment
Bot Summary:	Though in the appeal memo at two places mentions the Tribunal as at Mumbai, the record and proceedings, averments in the appeal memo and so also the learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that the impugned order is passed by the Tribunal at ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2019 08:16:33 ::: 2 23. The question therefore arises is whether the Appeal would be maintainable in this Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The Appeal is filed in this Court on the premise that the Respondent Assessee is now being assessed at Mumbai. In identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune v. Sungard Solutions Ltd. 105 Taxmann.com 67. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sungard Solutions negated the contention and held that the Appeal will have to be filed at Karnataka High Court and the Appeal was returned to the Appellant Revenue. The Appeal is disposed of as not maintainable in this Court. The Appeal is returned to the Appellant to take appropriate steps as may be advised.

IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 964 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 15 Appellant V/s. M Modal Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. :- By this Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), Appellant Revenue challenges order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 29 May 2015. 2. Though in appeal memo at two places mentions Tribunal as at Mumbai, record and proceedings, averments in appeal memo and so also learned Counsel for Appellant points out that impugned order is passed by Tribunal at ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2019 08:16:33 ::: 2 23. ITXA 964.17.doc Bangalore. copy of impugned order passed by Tribunal at Bangalore is annexed. 2. question therefore arises is whether Appeal would be maintainable in this Court under Section 260A of Income Tax Act. Appeal is filed in this Court on premise that Respondent Assessee is now being assessed at Mumbai. 3. In identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune v. Sungard Solutions (I) (P) Ltd. (2019) 105 Taxmann.com 67 . Here also Appeal was filed in this Court challenging orders passed by Income Tax Tribunal at Bangalore on ground that situs of Assessing Officer which would alone determine High Court which would have jurisdiction. Division Bench of this Court in case of Sungard Solutions negated contention and held that Appeal will have to be filed at Karnataka High Court and Appeal was returned to Appellant Revenue. 4. We are not being shown any reason to deviate from view already taken by this Court in case of Sungard Solutions. 5. Appeal is disposed of as not maintainable in this Court. Appeal is returned to Appellant to take appropriate steps as may be advised. ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2019 08:16:33 ::: 3 23. ITXA 964.17.doc 6. Appeal disposed of in above terms. NITIN JAMDAR, J. M.S. SANKLECHA, J Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax15 v. M Modal Global Services Pvt. Ltd

Metadata

Judgment