} IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH, 2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLE M.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATHf;7, THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.v.NAGARATfifi§«*" I.T.A.No.855/2QQ5_ BETWEEN: 1 THE COMISSIONER oF=iugoMEWTAxV <""' Bmmmpm: 'v? '~' 2 THE ASST COMMISSIONER Ofij 'g INCOME TAX ._f_ t i. v' CIRCLE 10(1) BANGALOREFJ ' ' ' ' ._ - (By sri 5 M V'éE$HA¢H§L§,ADv.) AND -. 1 .3/s'pRINT"TOTNT '*NO$i37/12, N S PALYA vT*BAN$ERGHATTA ROAD .,BAx$ALoRmT560 O76 ... RESPONDENT
(By $ri:~A}SHANKAR & M LAVA FOR RESPONDENT)
This I.T.A filed u/s. 260A of the Income
ml Tat’ Act, 1961 arising out, of order dated
‘=27;7,2004 passed in ITA No. 177/Bang/2003 for
, wthe assessment year 1997-98 praying that this
“>H9n”ble Court may be pleased to:
VA”~a.formulate the substantial questions of law
stated therein
b allow the appeal and set aside the order
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in
ITA No. 177/Bang/2003 dt. 27.7.2004 and
respondent assessee being aggrieved by the
said order preferred an appeal before VtheKA
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appealsf;V””
Bangalore, which came to be rejected and that
order of the Assessing Officer was confirmedirh
Being aggrieved by th§j 5aid. orderi “the
assessee filed an appeal berore the income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, hwhich ihelad in” favour of
the assessee and allowed the deduction under
sec.8O IA of the gct€g@ft*is against the said
order that the present appeal has been filed
by the’ ‘- the following
substantial guestions of law:
v,a) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding
l”ithat?”Aas5essee was entitled to claim.
‘_deductiQn finder Section 80 IA in spite of
. the bar under the Board’s circule No.34?
=dated’7;7;19a2?
b) Whether ‘Tribunal was correct in holding
V” that a printer is a “manufacturer”?
“of, Whether Tribunal was correct in holding
“that Taxing statutes should be construed
_1iberally and the intent of the
legislation has to be gone into?
On the basis of which the appeal came to be
admitted. ggéf
of’ bringing’ about a distinct commodity; raw
materials and the end products being differgfififfl
and the end products are available for saieI=i
Therefore similar activity of the reséendent
herein has to be held to he hanl industrialld
undertaking within the meaning of sec 35 lfi of
the Act . V l
7. In view of these’deeisions and keeping
in mind the faets of the present case, we are
of the viefi<thgE;the Tribunal was justified in
giving deductio&g?nde% seQ;8G EA of the Act as
the actiyity of the resEondent–assessee is a
manufacturing .andv_industrial activity and
;comes*eithin the scope of the said provision.
':l8, Accordingly, we answer the substantial
questions' of flaw' against the revenue and in
favour "oft the assessee by dismissing this
Saf »
JUDGE
sa/~
ESEGE