LA é . _.B£;§§£,2:..»!iL§iZ%E
'3
IN THE Hlfilvi-E {ESURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TH¥S THE 873 DAY OF MARCH, 2010
PRESENT
THE HONTELE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUN3*f}§VV':
AND
THE HOWIBLE MRS. .}US'I'E{3I;i; '1§.i2.'i'~:.:7x{*;:AI:::x*if§-i':<aga,V'
BETWEEN: % " V. '
1. THE COMMISSIONERQF -
ENCOME TAX, " " I
r;:2a3u:m1NR.;r;V. '3'
2. THE As3:s"rAN_'i* "%:'0§§i-Méfiélommn
G§'£rsccs«:s51:';:1fA§;:, ' ~'
::;Es::g_,E,-;"a(:5; _<:*;; R; BUILDENCE,
.....
APPELLAEQTS
(B’~sr.44 sR1..:»;,’§*{fAr%Av2Nn, ADV. ma
; MRQSESHACHALA, ADV.)
. :r……………………..’
SR: M RAMEsH[HU?)
~~-§:~£Q3\EGA$AE*%ERA vznmcg,
h!§A.3:}£V£:’ALA 903?;
BAEGALGRE-68,
RESPGNDENT
{$33 SR}, A SI~{A?~Ei~{A§§.’ AME SR1 M LAVA, ABEL)
This {TA filed 11/ s.26{)–A of the Income Tax Act, “1′.9#31
arising Out of Order dated 23.6.2904 pEi’3S!’:d
N0.91{)/ Bang] 2062 fear the Assfissmfizztt §’aa§””‘–1396~V9?’§
pxafing that tI:s.i$ H(;>n’b1c: Court may be pleased –¥;§:§: ” ” 1 V’
i. fomaulate the substantial questio;.1§kji* !aW”..$ta_tx;:{1’V:vt21-éfeixix,
allow the appeal and set aside i1:h$;_-Q1ftier=.pa$$ed”” 1I:;i3,V-..=._*A
Iizcxtame Tax Appellate Tribzxxgtal, BiZ.=§ig’3_10£”‘€*; Bcmzh ‘~
No.91()[Bang/2002 dta :23»-6:-2094 CO11fi1’H1i11gV_fl¥.§?F’QIfd€Y of–_”
the Appeiiate Cammissioner an}:i-.c;6nfa*m 31;: ‘order passer} by
the Asst. Comma Of Inqomt Tax, :C»;i1fcEe.:3—5(3), “BaV3;;g§-gslfatszt etc.
This YFA c0miiig: 0j1_ u this «day,
RIIAIVJUZVATII 2.7., delivered fdiléwfiig V
”
;§gg1’i¥;.=:véd H _<::3ficm*1*efit finding <::f thé
C0n1111i$:.3§<3';1¢ ' tlsf E:51'<:»:"sr1é:;«si:;"';¥'«3'§<: Lappeais) and the éxrdér 0f the
IEESQEES 'f;£:'i§31:z1"1a} iii; i'1'A. No.9 18 / Bang ,1' 28(1)?
. 5"f2:3.{S&;i2;8G4aW """ ';I'i"1<:': %preS€::1'{ appéal is flied by '€116
;fe%i:::i::i€:';"'~« is acimitted ¢<';I1$idering the faflowing
Siib'$€a%fit3,&§, '€;i}fiStiiifiS cf iaw:
A. : Whefiiér Sfzfitififl 142A af {ha Inceme
Tax Putt, ixxseegieci by Fimmace Act (Ea?)
af 2394, witfn i'&'i;F{3S§3€CtiV€ eiféet f1'¢:2m
15w1}_.3Q?2, ¢::3:1fi:rj11:*is»dictie:"1 an £116
2533362;-3$iflg Gificer té mqusst for
vaiziatiaii {sf the bifilfiiiig, as was fi«:=:
$7..
MBW
in the facts of tha p1*<=:.se11t case and
t.'£1c3ré:f<t):'e the judgmérit '0 the Ape}: "–.T
Cx3i1:'t in Sm, Anfiya Baia Paur "
(262 ITR 407) wouzd 1101: be %
to the facts of the p1*é;se11t’TCgf:s*§<:;, "if: ~:2ri£i~;w-._LL A j
of the 'S11bS€:q¥.1€=£"it-§;}"l&1i"ig§?;i;i"1 1aW? –
1%) Whether the Ag: \:;r¢1*e
<:0rre<:t it: lfiiifig Qltuésuld
havez. V self-
_ mada by
‘- 4’ ‘~3:§}<§;11be1's cxf HUI? in
L~..;1:;31"§1If;;¢%::i:;:_'i§ jelly, despita such
czgriéessixfiga 'aavirig btififi givcm by the
Rfaiuatiexz Ofiicc-;:r of 6% self-
' 'jfiiifieivisiaii 311:1 davelopmaiit (3031:,
arc:hii:@c'{ fees, quantity af matériais
used aim area caiusztructaé, em, and
izcmséquafitly, I'€:t:E€)i'§i3d 8. perverse
fiifzdiiig?
2? E3536 haéra §’3f§ai”{1 {E16 iaanmd CC;!i,1f1S$l far ‘aha gaifiés.
?>/,
3. So far as question No.1 is concerned, we are of the
opinion that the said question of Iaw could be.«jco:f1-siiiiered
in an appropriate case since question 1\Io;2
covered by the judgment of thisgcourt tfeVé£itiej« it
and in favour of the assessee. Aappeali is diettiiesed.
accordingly.
- JUDGE gfi: