c.R.Bui1dmg % ~ mngalomvseo 001 ;fis§t. Comm1m' -' net cfineontntdax . Rmpfathunga Row "_inn'sé1ctm' ' a had wasted with the in Tim man count or xuuwramx xr DATED mm ma 573 mm or AUGUST ' PRES"? 1. ._ mm Hownm am. JIISTICE THE I-IOFBLE nsn.JUs1ic:£f:1s;,s.rI}§e§;£.4£1¥nii.=:§' Incomg Tax .A1?ge_al__z Between: Motor Industries Co. Li;'c1.__ . H » _ - Adugodi 1' a:_ Bangalore - 56Q(_)30_ Represcntedby its'~ .4 (Joint I)i:ect.ofr..AA ' " -. ' Mr.V.K.Viswa:€aat31an}V * Appellant (By Sri for M/s King & Partridge, Azivocatcfaf " ., 2 1.
‘§;1i«-.V Income-tax
Bangaxoz-e-1r1~ % ;:
Queens
12(1)
_4 re
(Formerly i.e., at the relevant time
Deputy Commissioner of Incame-twz
(Asst). Special Range -, 6, Banww) — _
(By Sri M.V.SeshachaIa, Advocain) __ V L
This Income tax appeal fled 1:/s i1:<(X=m¢' ' ' –
1961 arising out of order (it. 31.5.:eoo«3_ "din 'I'¥'A=._Ne..
396/Bang/1998 for the asemfltnt yew
fonnulate substantial questions of em, .
This appeal oerm-'mg up day,
Manjunath J., delivered flze.fo11mwi;1g:– " :4 V V
This appeal the cxmcmxent
findings of the Omeer confirmed by
the fizrther confirmed by
the Ii1c0me vTl"'a'vr" in ma No.396/Bang/ I998
dated 31.05.2<3G4_'_£zn~§ tiic_ year 1991432. The fonswing
fi'meti' in this appwl:
the Triizmnal was correct in iaw in holding
A incurred-‘ on presentation alticles,
A did not have any mt value ‘m
3 V __ by the pmfmions of R11-k 68 cf the Imam:-mx
A Ruies?
VA Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding
that the interest £10131 short term bank écpoeits did not
{V
(Seduction and the first question is anmmd in favcatagn? :’é§ai:..
asscssee and xiciing the mattcr to the H
considtizr how the interest recciveci by ” xto.}_fbe’7_ V’
aeoountcd for the purpose of