I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAREIATAKA AT DATED mm mm mm ms! or JUNE A PRESENT um Hozrnm HRJUSTICE vg.GoP.a14}, - THE nownm mmam mx BETWEEN: 1.
The Commi$3ia_ner:df’II1c§2x:ia{Tax 3
C.R.BuiIdi:f1Q };j._-‘
Quecnsjfidadi-……’;’. ” ‘ ” V
2. The Joint Co:n1t1iss’iQfl<~r.r..–of Inoome–Tax(OSD)
Ci1'c1e_4K_.3(3) '
C-.R,-Bufldfiilg' ~
Banfialom. .. _____ .. I mAppeflantS
% – : '{i3j3V'$§i_i.M.V.SeshachaIa, Stg.Cotmscl)
M] E$hwarsa 8: Sons
' " " –« i:j*Nd.9,TScshadri Road
« 4' Bgzngalgre. ….Rcspondent:
fiiis Income Tax Appeal under Sec.260-A of
Iw.'1'…£s;ct, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.7.2008
"passed in ITA No.57/BNG/2008 for the Aswesmcntz
VA 2003-04, praying to formulate the substantial
questions of law stated thercm and in aliaw the appeal
and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore iIl
ITA No.57,lBNG/2008 dated 31.7.2008 confirm the
4…-.’l’l…4~..
orders (if the Ajiptznaw Cammissioner and Jr; 11:
Commissioner of Income Tax(0SI)), Circle —–
Bangalore.
This ETA coming on for hearing, Gopala
delivered the following:«- a ” ” AT »
Sri M.V.Scshachala, VA
appellant~Revenue submits law
framed in this case is answered
by this Court utiue case of
Commission;-r Enterprises
in rr Appeal 1313 3.7.2007.
2. Ixiview of .$éiif{i~.dVe.<:§"sir3i'1, there is no need fer us
to answer xthfé" of law framed in
T'h«3_appeaé "" I ' devoid of merit.
141; ,, 2 My % ] A Aég/~ 111019 3
" A.1V5;':&§'éé::;«1VA'§'.s5V'disn1issed accordk mg' ly.
Sd/*
Tudqe
sdii