'W"'*~*-WW" "WW" fiwfifli MI' mnwmzmm WWW? €.;&M;,;%W" KW mmmmm §*'%§fi%%I§"% €'$€'I.'3'«é'%;WE' Q?' %€.&WMK"'¥'AK& ?°"§§@%'i COURT 0? K&E%FWfiKfle Hififi C IN THE FIIGH COURT 0F KARHATAKA AT BANGALGRE DATED TI-ES THE 2"' DAY GF MARCH, 2910 mgsemv Tm Hormnz mR..1Us'r1cE K.L.MAR' ARE TEE HOHBLE Mas. JUSTICE B»3JsI§A:;:fARi.§TIi?ii'A'_'_1V«V & ' % BETWEEN: 1.
The Commissioner
C.R.BmM¥q, V _ ~
Queens Road,
re” –
2.
(By. Sri. fer Mxuswimchala far
. I z ‘ ‘ . . . . . ..
smug’
klfiiiffi-Ha.ier=~Ja1*fi=*
Vfifl-9%2V’95: ”
‘ A ” AA Tfieaéf,
. , . RESP€3HDE4NT
4%
Q)’
seww *o..»w’wmas we-” :am~«n.:»’.mmw2.mM mmwmi %..:*?w?j*.€’««¥;’t¢k”.fi MW” mmmmmnmmm miwm mwwwam Mr mwmmmsmmm mum ma-‘um wr mamammmm. Mfwfl MWMRK WEE” ?K.%.§§’.N>%§”@3%fi.$%. MEQM £3
Thu? ITA is filed 1.1] 3 260-41 of I.’I’.Act., 1%}. ax-Mtg eat at’
order dated 30.93.2004 paasad ‘m ITA 30.60213. 1999 for
the A%sment ‘(ant 19%»-97, pa:-aying tn:
i.
ii.
formulate the substantial quwtions of 1aw.4j5tétf§ci.A’
therein
Allow the appul and set aside the orda-3 paagied 1
ITAT, Bangabre in ITA 30.602/Barxgll ” ~.. ”
30.9.2004 85 oonfim tha ordasr’ ‘1’ég;pe1lI5it¢’L’v-.
Commiasiomr 0011131′. thn cu-dcLi:_<r 'Aast… f
Commissiozm of Income Tax Ci:-cite-5{3), = ._
'1'!-HS APPEAL come on F"f)R.."V'HEA§1fi'(f} DAY,
NAGARA'H-INA .3, 3:)BL1vEREVD%fz'rm;.»mI.I.C5w_';1IG:
the: arm %m. H0502/Ba.rg/1999
raking the af law:
1; am-ma' by the aaaasaaé fimfi depoem E: be_u'mted. as
~ V’ afirlye asmauac despite
, __mt carrying an any
A and was a mm
éf gill: waste and poiishad.
,, hv
“WAA &’t@T tin ‘l’ribuna.1 was otsrmci: in
* 4 Jfbaldfig that fir flu puwfi of
” . aomutaficn afdeductfien zmdw Sectian
‘ QJHHC afthae Act the grass total imtame
imtluds mt only the Emmma
_ mm profits of apart am but am:
EC.
MW” wwngfma wr mmmxwmimmum wzmm émwum M?’ %fiR%%£&’¥%Kfi HQQW $’l§.7€”‘}%}fiT (3? KA%N&”¥”fi§€fi. Wgfifi fifififlf fl? Kfiafififlffiflfi HFGW €
intmrwt meow: dwixm fimn med
depoaita made. in banlm in mm”
2. The facm saf the case are that tin H
Assamese has been assessed to tax in tha K
waste and polished granitaa. For an
97 the return. of imame was filed was
sactian 143413;) ofthe Act. that
the asmsee had depeaita
made in the incxnzne was
fimn arthser and am-¢rd311gly
dfi mt £315 tin Income
Tax Act. :_ fé:§p6rxdent-Aaseaaea the Fixed
depgsits m ahtain m-edit an in
mm imwme mm: &cm the Fixed
an hens. The .&smsing Omen”, hawesier,
*1 mwme from amm 591% am as a sic
£4
warm WE” %MM.K%%.W%%M”§§’*9afi% Wfiwifi %*2…s9’¢n2’$¥’€% W,V«fW.MfiE%M!MWm WEWWW ewwwm: WK” mmmwmmmm mm;-n wwmma M? ‘§*a.AMM$”%H%§Wl§”§.é””$. Mswm mwwam Wfi.” §§’*¢>fi~’Fs.K§%.c%.E<?%F'¢.,J*'*%. ?"'?§§'?\$'3E'"§ hJ.JE.,fiME
mad axfiéid mt bx-'mgthe same} under
mfimsufim efi&an 28.2.1998. T
3. The 1-mpacr::b:nt-aa.amse:e 3 ‘
said ordar prefmreclan appwl before
Income: Tax (A% czwxmding ‘V
Fixed mpcem cammt be brought
iztueolrae firm: tathmamzma xwtbe set
ofi’ towards the mg 4 1:; buainczaa
awepwdmdms mm by mm
mid order, aasmeaé’ mm the [mama
Tax Appellate maaomd that the
Wwt we Piedsed 5* mm and
for buaixms ptmw and tkwfare the
the said mime. Deposia should he sat
i %& §fif pm as business oapmaimm am
__ on a derfinicsn efthe Calcutta High Court in
a:’%crr Va. Tiirupafi Waolm. mm; m.,(193 rm 252;
gmm amt gazm umm am busmess and acmaim mama
Ii
/
relief of deéuctian under section GOHHC at’ the Act. Being
& by the said ordm”, the revemza has pm-efierred
apml.
4. We mm mare! the learned
and 2m Leurxmad ctmmel fiar tm
5. It in aubmrml on of
mhumz was not 1-‘gm in mam
de.:riw.d by the asseawa be
mm as mum the assesses
was mt can-gm an exporter
of silk waam ami than aka cnntended
that ‘u; in Act, only whm the
incerm takim imn cenaidmwriorl
that ixamme mm be dafluczted under
tins immnt can: that is mt so, as the
‘ 9? is $1-1; of silk waste and poliahad
mt banfl busmese. He Ems aha mm apex:
af rim Apm Cant: in the was of PAEEIAN
QWVWNW W” xcmawmmmtzimmm uiewm mwwavafwrlimmmmmmmm WWW M.,xmm’ W?” mmaNm:m;m mmm” W? fi£%.fiN&”§”fi4.%% HWM 666% 05* mmmgm Wwé CQUW”
Z
.2””'(
‘\.\
£}§n§3§§”§( W5′ §~’§&fiN&C’§’fi$-WQK NEWW %§§%f.3$§~E?fiT”lE’ .,§IfiMRN§§”¥&H’§.& fiiwfl fi.mWUfi§ W?’ %.MKNé%.Efl%M mwm mwum M?’ mflfiwmtmflm Wmwa mmw-w:¢:a§_& m>~s.m,w’x»mmw.m. mmmms wmemxvwmy
E
CHEMICAI.«8 LTD. VS’ COBEIISSIONER OF IHCOLQ
(3003) 262 ITR S.”‘?3{SC} in support (sf his subzniasion. . ‘
” – 6. fie: qmtztrn, mumal for the
submim that me.-. Tribunal was jmmeus; ‘an
af deduction under 850.80}-IHCja£_.
D¢P08i!:a wane taksn out from the
WW and the «*1 W
obtainm as. loan in and
hawfi that receivfi
and paid mare than
profit of crf oomputm deduetion
aha: relied upon a dmlinrz of
th§§’S_u§§;mdae in 1993 vomos mm 331 2:; cm
cg’ %Vt mm&:ssI¢§fl’ER 95* mcmm mx vs. aevmm
f $0213 in support of has aubmhsiaon am
of 1:113 Court reported Ex: (9%) 1′?(}
(1:53) an em cam sf eezmxsslonmn are’
k %$:mj;vm:rm< vs. cmm, Kacmmm cousamrcrxans
5
:aWW’5d’¥”\t.€# was nmmwmmmm zwwm mwwm%AAwr.:&.mmwmamK$a mama mmmm U?” wwwmmfim. @fiE§§7tE””f” W? 9€fiRNfifl”fiKA WEQH COUW” Q? i’€flRW§i?’fiW.& flififl COURT
an aa to @end that the ardw of cm Tribunal daea not
&rmy mtEsa%l. T »T
‘F’. I-Iavim @111 the counsel on both
diapum that mspondent-asaesaee in
‘t:rus?%a of silk waata am £01′
of wmh he has obeaima credit in credit
facilitis by the ansasum {gr
of 11% apart busirx-.33., wga the Fixw
Deposits as 8 bwevé-:1′, 3.; as
to whether Depoaim shculd
be adjmuted faymefifi paid, payments
mag on the to wmflm the bmm
M has 1» be m. me
x that 1115 Fired Depnaitm wars:
tin loan asbsmined fiat tbs page of
me for we mm buamm. Tm am-at paid
Hdeflit me but ha mm as a mm’ s
The depmm mm: requkend #9 that the asaew
mail was drafi tafl as m: wfmz itwaa mama finr
purme sfbusifls 1% aaawam h an 169%
&&’»/,K
m it has no» aflwr buainwa eazcapt fig business of expqraa,
Whax the filer}. depoaim were made ant of the
the interest that ace-rum on the said deposit has
ass “btminaus irmome” and not an ‘A V’
Sima the ansmaaa has ma othw bua:’nw;a ‘ V
gum’ by the mbum: in the ‘
3. At rm stage, i.9:..ia % myfi ; ins doohiom
aim: on the Ear In the case of
;%§’%J%€.&i §i,.¢,{‘§§”‘ 2?W’%%«i§VéF*3ér.§;$?»§¥’é.a¢§’3*§ MEWW ¥w3w$%i?K% %FV’%£%KWM§MWM WEWW QWWWE WV Wflfilwflfififlfl NEW” WWMKW WW £*¢£4~%.MEWl%%¥aM%.dW NEW??? amwmm Ywfll” §%.»§Wa£fi2¥”*vRM;%1£«*$.1f%@’>% WEWW wwwm
comausslonm or cxmma.
Hacmmmm in (2003) we
Tammx 2?: mm the aaaeasee
has Demim as secure
Bank acquire thc mamas: werk, thc
has m be umber! as its
% busfi;V§&ai_i1:-@;grme.’ ‘ ymmm ac, this Ccmrt; relied upen a
% T fimiapmg cans: in err V3. Govmm sammmrm
tn supra. Tim said daeisian which is
a .’Em’mh of thus Judfi states that
with ta: amunts rweiveé mam’ an arifiirafion award.
-.-4-ouwwwwww worn nu:-mam
w’uuMM2ar”mma’m xmwm mwwma nmnmmamfim WIWW MUWKE WW mmwmzmm WWW”? CUUKT U? KRRNKYAKR H36″ 0%
bytheasaawsasaewhfiahvs-a,saCoii:1t.?wmMcase,___tha
said amuunt mg H-eater! as business inuoma axfi not
mam rathmr warm.
9.. Howwer, the mama ‘
relied’ upon amther dens’ ion of V.
crmmcans Lmvs. comnssroxms as mam %m<, no
mrmarxd that with regard in
mm, the interest on me M be said to
removed and mm-exam mt
liable for mane ofthse Act.
E ‘3 a amp
16. We an the fax:-m afthe pa-went
we ®m£m.uoa the awmm mtm-ad to
Wag, mamas cmmmm LTD vs.
meow TAX,wsuk1 not be appfimble
. , Q In the instant mm as ah-fly stated £91-
ofim husimas that h mm business, than Fima
wm fisma. as mm in o1′:im’ ta avaii ands:
V. ané mnsaqumlyz an faem we. are at’ tkw eansfiered
/if/,
V,
‘WWW? W?” §’¥}*§.%f”%$.a%%%?<'g%M §'fiLE%M""?~ &;»-mum wi'§"'f_ mmmwmfimmm mawm MWWKR V?" WMWEWMEMWM mama m…wMxw MW" mmwwmmmmm muww wmflwam wwr' wmMW§'°MwM::*<L»M. ormww Mwmmwls
1%
v§aWtha1£thedescisiow1'n::.(}Q'¥V£D\{3IfiUDHIJRY&S()I{$
mfl cmmma mmmmmmzcmmnwmmmsagg»
applicable and me $631011 czf the Apex mm in %
cHEMMmLsLfiDvsmxnmM£aKmERcFnKm£§i&g}g# w"vL
mdmmgmma ammmgmwammmwmgmwamafi
questizzm of law ra.ised?m 1:153
dismm the appeal. ' ' A :
%;_IUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE;