High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs National Insurance Co Ltd on 22 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs National Insurance Co Ltd on 22 October, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao C.R.Kumaraswamy
4.:

        
A I ' I _NATlO-MAI. _IANSURP1\i'P!.CE COMPANY LIMITED

  BANG£.-LC)RE>-' 5:40 027

 ._  I THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF

' _...*196i, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.09.2006 PASSED IN
 =.lTA":NCL1552/BANG[2GDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999--2000
 _F'RAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS CF LAW

 ~, S"i'ATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL IXND SET ASIDE THE
  'ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME~TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
"IN ITA NOJSGZIBANGIZOOS, DATED 28.09.2006 AND CONFIRM THE

IN THE HIGH coum' or: KAPPATAKA AT BANGALORE
{DATED THIS "ms 22"" DAY OF ocroaea zoos 

PRESENT " flf  _

THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE !(.SREEE)i-EAR   

AND [I I
ma Ho:~ra:..E MRJUSTICE C.vR;*K:£.MAF}\S_\IV?§MYVV’

INCOME TAX APPEAL No;I36&SI,A9I§ 260$’ .

BETWEEN ;

1 THE COMMISSIONER 0;: 1NcoME..TAx_ =
<: P. BUILDING . ' ' _
QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE

2 THE'xmtzamermxBFFICER-(Tbs)"W'
wrxgrs-15(2)' . _'
C R BUILDING, 'QUEENS RQAD
BANGPLQPE ' ' …APPEL1ANTS

(336 3:21: "M v"s5sHAc:aA:;:x; ADVOCATE)

r:1vIs1Em”

(BY spa-1: M v 3AvAL.1, AEVOCATE)

ORDER or-” THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER, CONFIRMING THE ORDER
PASSED av THE means mx OFFICER (ms), WARD 15(2), BANGALORE.

‘of ofmche judgment rendered in the said

ca;$e,V_Vth_i:§Aob«a..:aiV siisposed of.

2
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
K. SRIEEDHAR R110, 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

.1_!LE.§__l.’1.Efl_’I

Sri.M.V.Java!i takes notice for the responden.t.,__”f V.
I.A.nos.1 ané 2/2008 are ailowed. The p-:’odu r’:tifo–no

certified copy of the common order_Jp,as_sed_.by’ iiicome-i “‘
Tax Appeilate Tribunal, E%angj_aEo’ré; » . _’ ° ‘:5. ‘I.”iZsXA

no.1562/Bang/2005 dated 2ec.koa,%2oo”s. is odssoeoseoooc ugvith. cc

The 1*.g_ubsta : it’é::*:£–«qix:esiéo:hvv..of iaw invoived in this appeai
is no more ‘é*o§9§ont@ré'”.§a:fl:”t.[Hé . same has been decided in

favour o§’t’%1g rt-2\}é’r:__u_ e” f.T.;A.no.245/2008 and other batch

Sd/-

Iudge

Sd/-»
Judge