The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs M/S Naveen Hotels Ltd on 25 March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT 012' KARNATA' A  ' k%   ~

CIRCUIT BENCH A_T...DI+iAR.V..?AvD:: %%  %

QATED THIS mm 25TH DAY 

PRESENT       
THE HONBLE M}?.JUS*§;§VC'1v_3 _:.. .IQ.[AI'$JE...IvI:\§IATH
THE HQEBLE  MALIMATH
    
    ~ 

1.  '}.'h(~';   'i191come»TaX,
c; .12. Building, A  *
P. B ; «. Road , - _Na3f"a11-agar,

 'Hubfi.  , V_ V'

  17!! .  jifiexputy Commissioner of inceme 'Tax

"  _ A.5S<?i$s;11s:nt,
 . S;)€{;_ia~_l.'VV'I?;é1nge,
* Bgggamx.  APPELLANTS

 (By skim; V. SESHACHALA, ADV.)

  "El/s Navean Hotels Ltd.

Gokul Road,
Hubii. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRLASHOK KULKARNI, ADV.)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2_7’A OE
THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1951, PRAYZNC} TO SETS-SIDE
THE ORDER OF THE iNCOME~’1’AX AEPELLAEE
TRIBUNAL, PANAJI,

NO.WTANO.40/BANG/1994, DATED 12S{‘S.’20b~3,*=.
CONFIRMING ‘i’¥-{E ORDER OF THE.v..:”AV§’PELLA’}’EVV
COMMISSIONER ANS CONFIR1\r§»«.TH%53 ASSESSEiE’:-fl’ E

QEDER PASSED BY THE”DEPUTY..CC31%)iM’ISS.i{}NER..,Q.F

INCOME TAX, ASSESSMENT, ‘-._SPECIAL_ .R’Ag§I%EGE.,_

BELGAUM,AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COM§NE}’V«.x()I*I ESE EEWEIG, THIS

BAY, MANJUNATH S, DELI’v’F§_§?ED_THE’ FQLLOWING:

‘«..Vb_{_§;L.w2¥__]___”}__–‘_§’x'”:\z’I}:”33\1’I’
V the. Revenue chalienging the

divEfgSnt of the order passed by the

of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Belgaum, in

~.:f§f::{3Séi1:”V”_”Ne’;~.;.i2./HBL/93»-94 dated 17.1.1994, for the

aS’SSSS:x;nSI:it year 1990-91, which has been confirmed by

Q ‘S am Eicome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, in

%S3m9A.4o/Sang/ 1994, wherein the Tribunal has

V remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the

Commissioner of mcome Tax (Appeals), in accordamrpe

(V

with law. The Tribune} in the case

Hotels Ltd had ganged relief n¢1a:;gee:na:msee _

Naveen Hotels Ltd is liable to

of the property alleged to”r1,:ai.%e been of L’

M/s Piem Hotels. _to re§por1de1′:t–

aseessee, it has not to M/ s Piem
Hotels Ltd ‘ii: with M/S Piem

Hetels Lt§.1″1i1_”2,de.r~’a ‘

T’ .WTA.7/2004 disposed of on

25.3.2{}£}L9,reeo1*:_eie!eriri’g:iiiie arguments advanced by the

learned Counoeel for the appellants, r

‘me Income Tax Appellate Tribune}, Bangalore

aliorwed the said appeal and remanded the

matteritevftie Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), for

: refresh Veonsicieration in aecerdanee with law. In View of

‘ jarguments advanced by the learned Counse} for the

‘ V’ “appellant herein in W’I’A.’7/{)4 and other connected

matters, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein

<~&/

cannot challermge the order sf remand smce it

to apmbate 35 reprobate. In the circums¥a§§éeS,l_'

net see any merit in this appgal a.nd"=

dismissed. The Commissioner'-._of :_II1r:x§111*:: 'I25; {Agjpeaésj

shall consider the case of'

both the: matters, vi1f.,M/S Hdt{§1s_:V.I3tc1V §az1d M/S

Naveefl Complex.

Sd/-w
Tudge

Sdiei-3

–oflfi

§’:.,:駒

5]” iésiiisg.