High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S K Lakshmansa & Co on 9 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S K Lakshmansa & Co on 9 December, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Kumar
Bangalore in ITA No. 'I24/Bang!' 266.0

dat¢d.25.3.20£34 confirming thd order pa_ss9d._V
by the Appallate commissioner  
consaquently confirm the letter is_rsi£ee:«  
the Assessing Gfficar dated 14~09~19€i9" aVt4:V.'*-  _  '

-mrs ITA comwc as FOR    

x.L.MAnaunArH 3., DELIVERSD ran roLLc$Iss: »_-_._

J U D a»xVx.w T g"V

This appeal is  
the legality and    judgment
passed by thag   Tribunal.
Bangalaze a¢g¢~;=1g rig R9§§§§:§ang/zooo dated

25.3.2

o$¢;*4 §+ “§= ”

2._ T1i6:.i9′}:”a§:pea1 is ackaittad to

substantial quaatiana or

v. M X -_…….4.A.,_._~ unmwunmw auwarn mwuna wr RHKNAIAER Hlfiéfi €.,;.0Ui{‘f 0? KARNATAKA HIGH COUR? OF KARMAYAKA HKSH COUR

a My; ‘MR

Pazathar, their Appellate
Authbritias were correct in holding

” A. the aaseaaea was entitled to
_ xz:_!:ex*¢wt under saatiarz 24-M of the
‘£62′: an that amount of interest paid

under Sectian 23%, 234.3 inc? 2343’ of
‘ the Act: which was waived in

acacszdancze with the Baud
notificatian dated: 23.5.1996 iaaued
under section 129 :31? the Act: by the
Settlaaaxzt camtisszon.

xv’

Wmfiamw mama amnnmnnmg Mg. II:

. 3

.» -w wmy… .m.m…mm .,.w, Wm… W nnxaunxnnfl nmvn Wm” W mama-mm mcm cmmr «W mmmmeerg mm mm:

T. 2. ahathar, the Appellate ;
Az1t;h¢.r1:;e’.9s’, have jurisdiction to .. ~/

entertain ex”‘a’£:&£:utg.;,y appeal
the pravisixma af tiw Incme Tax aict” _
against the 1nt1mt1on,passed by . ‘

Assessing Officer /

Camiaaioner of Incme ‘.E’§:x”‘ds:c;lix;i._r:_ig”«_’ .
two great interest: under ‘».$ec;£:T.£r:x1’T=2=§.«§_.t; x

or the Act. _

we have raframad the qucs !fi§§:z-.V_Vo£ in} ETA
N’o.486/2006 as herein1{t1c1e’§t % ‘ %
“E2¢.tf£e§zf. of
Income, 4’i”‘;1e2J.-_;’ Income
Tax ~ were
jus;’£3}ia¢§;_.V . ‘2§§1gxzj§ that the
assiiasaénéa’ to claisa
intarésfz” _u§.5c$_§.t’ _ “S§at.:a:: 244A of the
V arbor} .i:i’!:eraa£: was waived off
i.t;.?1¢§%’..’ASeti:§i’§§§¢v-ant: Comziaaion based
Dhgardahip pleaded by me

“* k5s§3§$e?fls
V Sfi.x:<;;¢;_ tickets at this case are similar
facts of the case in 2E'1'.'A NOAB6/2094
'"¢ &ia§osea or by us today g9.12.20e9;, the
fivearned counsel appearing for both the patties

submit that zfollawing the judgment in ITA.

6/

_ .. … – …wA-V_, 1111235 1:-'Ir-\zw°'I a-u«..~.-an uwum ur EVRKNAIAKR HEGR COURT OF KARNAXAKA HKGH CQURT OF KARNAYAECA Hifivfi (SOUR

823.486/2004, the present appeal he dispofiefi.

of.

3. Accordingly, we ”

answering the quaation of ix:-;£€zvA¢:.:_.’.r:’

E19″ €.&._75€’x*€*”\’~*”» -(in,

f”I”%¥IB’!* he Ufiflkinmnum …….- __.._._ _