High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Balanoor Plantations & … on 17 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Balanoor Plantations & … on 17 November, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Kumar
1
IR TEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

mzman THIS 1332 17'" DAY or rzovzrmm, 2039
PRESERT

THE HOWBLE MR..:rus-I-Ics 

THE HOEWBLE MR.JUs-rim AR£VIND   -

I.'I'.A.N0.505 on12'eo4 '' .
BETWEEN: V

1 THE cozmxssxoma cshmcoz-ré:  
c.R._BUII..DI2zG     
9153:3135 RQAI)

Bmsgnom

2 '.:==§m= a;:m:m~A cmémsstccnan or mcom TAX
CIRCLE 11 " £11}   
C . r:';B;tJ:x.13':.1~:G¢ ., " gimsus Kazan f
i  " ., A.PPEI.LA"NT$

' ;T€B¥ 3;a'=*:1  sEsHAcXIA:..A,Az3v.>

Axfivt

1 ' ms  PI.Z«'&.N'1'ATIGZ~¥$ a xmssmxas mm
x T Emésmm IHFARTRY' 323 FLGGR
§~Z0.2§, zwmmy RGAE,

   *  EA1~¥GALfiR,E~--1

RESPQEDEKT

 (By Sri: R 3 §'RIS§n<IA2-iEIR'I'§§¥ a Kw; AS275.)

This I.?.A filed ufs. 25mg cf the inaam
Tax. fififi, 19$: arising cut cf azdar éated
22.3.23

Gé passad in ETA E0. 4?8fBangf2§33 £0:

K:

{V

exaznining the age, girth and typ:e..”0;£ ‘«<..'_tw:;fee

in the facts <35 the present_;""'ca$ga_j:a;~;;¢:1_

c:<:2:':$e@ent};y recorded a. _

2E Whether, the Tribur}a1"'-«waé; Vin»

balding that the fail': %%nm:mt%

shade trees 3.s;'G*1? 3.[L4._.§"1931j«' v'%A4?:sJ?%§:

arrived at by taiéigig 3Lntk:-._ ":13-hsideratian
the actual .~.$ale«V""'§£-.'i.<é;e_ a:<fa'i'la;'b1e fox:
subsequent asfit-2!:-;és$fi:e:§–t:. giézfajzzsé _

ragalsgd ._$.25"ifioa{V"%;hes_:"'rs:ar}:et value cf the shade
traag ti: »– at by the éssessirzg

Qfiifiéar f7$r{ Vthé pzzxpage af aoxrguting the

. %Ig?ain in ragpect af sale Qf '*:,3;:z@ez*,

.f:?Tz'~L.$.:sVV'i:'§ii;:~s*3_s"::*.:.*§;:a:é§",a has baa}? answerad by t1'z3'..$ Smart

'%?'AZ.s}'.:E'i'

§a7':1c;r;;3;:;g? the dmismn in

*E.$jI'A'§"fEiS 1:535 133. mm: smegma ms Ifififiifi mg

£232». E3m.2é9f2§§2 a,t.2?'*h gamma: mm

'"§be§%2'@&n :~:x§'.§ARvm*aA%w§&m V5,. mcezsg mx

ewzma dafiad 2?" fiamntbfir 233?, In tha

saiaé ease, sizaiiar quéstien haé arisen?

'V.

4; V.

3. In View af paragraph § Qfg the

aferesaid Judgement, we have to set Qsifia %h¢_

arder passed by all the aut§¢rities*fi$réin afi§*

ramand. the mattgr ta the; %$3%3£ing cfiieaz

witheut conaidering the §ub$t#nt$§i_flgg§tions V

mf law framed herein. A3 cfirtaifi fgéta are not
progérly ascartainéfi_b§ th§”§3$e$sing Gfficer,

we are inclined ta pags this cider inspite of

staut”b@§§$iE£fln”h£’tfiéwiearnefi caunsei far

the asséssee;a§,’q4V

;’€, Aficaifiimg ta the ieaxned caunsel fer

“thé a$SGS$$é, ma substamtiai qpastiens cf law

“a$i$é$ in this appeal. But we havé seam frcm

thé-re¢§r§s that the assassing Sffiaer has mat

*D fQ;lfi§éd aha praaeénre while aamyuting the

“§épital gains in raspeat 9f the timfier said by

‘”~§he agsaagea herein, As there i$ a yrima facia

pracédural irraularimy aemmitted kg’ the

Assessing affiaarg we have me ather qgtiefi