tzéy vsfi: SE81--1ACI"'{ALA. ADV.)
.NOSWAM:INAT}*lAN SINCE DEAD BY ms LRS
v~N£«:15:1;AO\/AT}-11 ANO ms
NEELAVA'1'HI
- 3AA O,
IN' THE 1-non COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16"" DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2010'
PRESENT _ V
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTECE2 K.1,.MrxNJO:s§;A;_1fjH_ ' L.
AND '
"rm; HONBLE MRS. Jus'iiI.Oi; " n
1;'r.A.NO.290g'2.®_4,_ V
BETWEEN:
1.
THE cOMM1s§3’iONER”O’F ::’NO’O:v1.E: ‘
c R BU1LO§_Nc;j;,g’UKENS ROAD ‘ V. ‘
BANGAi{_ORE__ ‘V O
INOOM :TA;><. IN3/E:s*r'1.g:AfriON"'
CIRCLE 5 (,1 1.
{Q
QUEEENS ROAD» _ ~
BANOA1,4OR_:+: ”
. . . APPELLANTS
W / O M N SWAMINATHAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A. NO. 13. I CROSS
DOD DAKA’l’APi3’A ROAD
ULSOOR
BANGAI,OREvO8
6. ii’ any payment is made towards the security, towards
the business oi’ the assess. such amount is an allowab__l_e
deduction, any amount spent for the maintenance ()i”fneaee
and law and order in the business premises of i1i¢”asVs¢ssévi.ei’x»’ _oifxil1e tribunal. liowever. in the instant case.
thelpay111ei11i’ih:-sis been made to the police and rowdies to
‘ keep the.ri’1l’a\xr21y from the business 1)i’emises which paymeni
beheld as illegal and such illegal payineiii. cannot be an
_ ‘wfilloivable. deduction.
7. in the eireu 1′}}SE’¢’1l’1C.CfS. we answer ihe question. of law in
favoin’ of the revenue and against the assessee. Ao(:to1’cli1’igly.
<3?'
we set aside {he order passed by the Incrome–t.ax Appellate
'I':'ibunal dated 13.10.2003 passed in I.T.A.No.364/Ba1"1g/95
and {he order passed by 'zhe Assessing Officer and the
Commissioraex' 01' InC():ne–ta1,x mppeais} aye 1*<:st.r:;';"t':'d-. :2. b
S5'