Loading...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Arun Engineering Works on 9 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Arun Engineering Works on 9 April, 2009
Author: Ajit J Rahim
IN THE HIGH comm' 05* KA»RNA'§§§§%,g" f "
CXRCUET BENCH AT l;{Z>If1A-?§WA£§*\ '   . _
DATED was THE 91% _:;Ay Q15 'A1§Rz:,2To}:§§.i._ ««.  
THE HONBLE LLGUNJAAEJ
TH E;_~H{3~;§;i§_%LE::MR.L  RAHIM

  N"<:3,233 09' 2006

1. THE"CQMM'ISf:'3»IONEEZ.__O'I4'
INCQME Tax'   
K}§£?9§.§E9BEiOE COMfvEEFECIAL COMPLEX
QPP. CIVIL E-IOSPIVTAL

' BELGAUIK/i~:§9 0 00;

  'f:~iE: ASST. COMMISSIONER OF'

.. "  Ts:-»I.C:3§e:%12;'TAX, CERCLE~1
 A 23231;r:;;a!,}:vI--v~' .. APPELLANTS

 {B'f'Si?'§.AARAVIND KUMAR, Am.)

HAND: "  3

' 1w_ §;"_:%.RUN ENGENEERING woszxs
_  'iJ§'¥'z§B/EBAGH, KHANAPUR ROAD
" BELGAUM  RESPONDENT

{BY SRi SANGRAM S KULKARNI, ADV.,)

THIS IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF LT. ACT 1961
ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31«08-2005 PEXSSEI3 iN ITA

:2:

NQ.306/PNJ/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ..’1’~99-8599,
PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASSL;»’:fc; V.

i FORMULATE THE SUBS’I’AN’1′}-AL’ ‘QUE€3’FIQNS~» SOF’ V –{.’AW..

STATED THEREIN ”

ii ALLOW THE APPEAL AND S’ETF__ASIDE*–TI£E ASSSES.
PASSED SY THE £*mi:*,_ PANAJP BEN!’-3l.~IA,” IN I’FA
{$0.306/PNJ/2004 DA’1’E£.>’*~:;f1~oS420SS ANDn. GQNFIRM 1. ‘
‘THE OESEE PASSED BY THE.ASSESSING_I=OFi?ECER, IN
THE INTEREST 09’ JUSTICE AND mumz. _

THIS INCOME TAx..AjPEP:%;A:, V;.S”COi\AA:NS ON FOR FINAL

HEARING ‘THIS DAY, AJI’I’_TJ ‘SI3’r§aA:;~.J;, “DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING: _ , V

T}”A1’1:-‘§Va’ppea1 The substantiai questien of I

law fgrmulatéci this Sppééi by the Revenue in its memorandum

V’ _<::»f af3f3Sz~3__1.._raadS thtisr ———- ~ "

{E}. 'V Vwhsther payments made beycnd due dates as
" S ' w 'pI'.E}*»$CI"1'b€d u,'S.43I{3 rfw SSc.36(1){va) and 2&4) can
.~ ~ _ he condoned ?

‘ Vwhether the Appeiiate Authariity and Tribunai were
u 3 correct in hoiding that “due date” Stated in
Sec.36{1}(va} can be condcsned thmugh Statute does

not pmvide for ‘P

2. A pemsai of Substantiai question of iaw formuiated
in the present Sppeai, it is Seen that the question involved in both

thase appeals are Substantiaily the Same. It is aiso izmzmghi to G111′ %
f

notice that the subject matter is covered by judgment 4.

[TA No.85] 2008. Foiiowing the reasons statégd ‘V

appeai also deserves to be dismissed. Appéal £3

accordingly.

X

-Iudgé

BNS

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information