High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 22 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 22 October, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao C.R.Kumaraswamy
us: we HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT aANGAL§3s§,E_

mrreo "ms THE 22"" DAY or-' ccmaea zniigj   

PRESENT

ms HOWBLE MR..'iUSTICE K.sRsEDHAR  F   

AND     . .k 
THEE HON"Bi.E MR.msTI_cE C.R.._KU.MARASWAMY V    

INCOME TAX APPEAL.§;"o.272 as 2003 L

$52;  ' %  % %
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF mCo'rv:--5'T;\x   ---  
CRBUILDING,     * --

QUEENS ROAD'  _  _  - 
BANGALORE    = 

2 THEINCCEME TfiC§.QFF£CER ('§{3E".z--}  
W;-'\.RD~15('3:3_V  .4  --
C R BU.ILDiNGS;- .»  RON}
BAN'3ALORE- "     ...APPEL1.ANT'5

(av ss€1L:- V sés3A:HA.LA, ADVOCATE)

"Vt?-iENuE'.fil fi$SURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

 =VAD.£).NsD.3;»M"GRDAD

MAHA:AxsHM1'cH;aMB5Rs ' '
BANGALORE n-'.'»ssQ;;oo2 ...RESPONDENT

‘{BY’—-$:RI: “iv: V JAVALI, Aizvmms)
THIEINCOME TAX APPEAL is FILED UNDER SECTION 250-4:. OF

“..j1».’f.AC-’21. 1961, AR§SING our OF oaosa DATED 11.10.2006 AND

CQPRIGENDUM DATED 26.11.2006 PASSED IN ETA M01494/BANGIZOOS

FOR THE ASSESBMENT YEAR 19994030, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTISNS OF LAW STATED THEREIN ANSI T0 ALLCDW

” T?-iE AF-‘?EAL AN3 SET AS195 THE ORDER WXSSED BY THE INCOME-TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NC.l494/BANG/ZGGS, DATED
” 1110,2006 AND CO1’-2R1GE?\£DUM DATED 26.11.2806 AND CONFIRM THE

ORDER 0;: ms APPELLATE com-vxssrowsa, czonrmmme THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (ms), wmzo 16(3), BANGALORE.

2
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS DAY,
K. SREEBHAR RAG, J… DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT A V
Sri.M.V.3avaI¥ takes notice for the respo.n_d:”e~rit.’ %

I.A.nos.1 and 2/zoos are a|i§iiie:d_;’ ;Th__e’3p’rdd’:ifii:di*g__df

certified copy of the commonbedrdefipeissed

Tax Appellate Tribunan.._ie.e,:.”‘$angé’id_ré, ITAV

no.1494/aangizoas dafed 1;’i’.”iO;:2;Q(\j5.._andivviicdvrrigendum
dated 20.11.2005 is dispeVnV’Osed;d__elay of 233 days

in fiiing the Appeé%:;:Tj:£.* coiwdcned. u

Tiie sLz’_AbOAsiLv’jé;«2:v:V1VtVi_éi«Oquesiipn. of law involved in this appeal
is no mdire ‘res–intédra same has been decided in

favouf’ofiAthe”seigeri.iJe in ‘i;T.A.no.245/2008 and other batch

fiOf.V¢’&deé”-.”f the judgment rendered in the said

t:-aise-_,_V disposed of.

Sd/2′
J’u.d§é’

Sdf
Judge