High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Canbank Financial Services … on 20 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Canbank Financial Services … on 20 August, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath & A.S.Pachhapure


1% THE HEGH CGURT OF KARNfiT£KA A? BANGALORE_
DATED TEES $93 2Gfi§fflY 0? AUGUST, 2aGa=f 3
PRESENT: W
THE HON’BLE MR. JUsT1CE_K,:f M§§J8£A:§j:
ANS V . , _ _ ,

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTIGE A{S, 9AcHaA§§a;V j

ENCQME TAX Ap9EAL»w§;4§3,gg 2334

BETWEEN:

C.R.au11§1ng,fi__
Queens R&ad,7VV
Bangaio:e; ‘–V

E. The Commissicfiaf of Imcémé~?ai,-&§

f’\Q

The 3QimtVCGmmiSeia§é: cf Income-Tax

Assessment; _VVW ‘a¢” u

Sp@cial_Rangee6p’

C.R.Build¢ng, _A

Queens Road,”*

Bafigalcre. *H_ ‘. … AP?ELL§fiTfS

‘Q {By Mf$.=M;V}Se3hachala and K.¥.Rravimd, Afivs.}

ANfir_

V«< M/3. Cahbank Financiai Services Ltd.,
' "fa v. .

=5txEl0or; Naveen Comgiex,

.§, MIG. Road,

‘Laaaga;sre~1. … RESPQNQENTXS

Kumar, 3:. counsel, for Mfg. Kimg &

ridge, Aav3.z

~:’r~k*~§:

Thia ETA is filed u/Sac. ZSGR cf the Income Tax
fiat, Z961, arising out of Qrfier dated 31.fi3.2GG4
passed in C.Q. No.46fBangfi999 in ETA
No.5Gé/Bang/1§99 f$r the asaessmant year i?93–94
praying to formulate the substantial questiqfia
law stated therein and to allow the a§p@aiWa3d set
aside the Grder passed by the Income fax Appe iaie

0
H1

” 3
L.

Tribunal, Bangalore, in C.O. No.46fBangfi999’iha”*Aw

1
2\$£>.6534fBaz3g;”‘i9§39 dated 31.e3.2@c>4 and t

Order passed by the ApggiiatefiW”CQmmissiQnefi”

confirming the Order gasfied “why; gthé’ ‘Deputy
Commission@r of Income Taxp: Head €Quar?er5:IEI;
Bafigaiore; etc. 7 ‘= i ” ‘ “– V

This I?A Gaming on faf Final Heafifig, this day
Manjunath J., delivered the fdiicwing:”u 1

“the :@?énue, challenging the

Order gagged fiy iiéaihfiémé Tax appellate Ztibunai,

Bangalore Bgfich WE? ifiQC.O. No.46/Bangf1999 in ETA

_ No.6Q§fBangfE§99, dated 3E.O3.2GG4.

Tz;1ig i.T5e*. resgondent i3 a public s@ctor

undertakinqfl_ The appellants hava not preduced any

V¥_4’dGcument’§o Show that the consent has been obtained

uvifrdmithe Cmmgetent Authority §C.O.D} befare filing

ufhifi appeai. in the abseace of gush cwnsent, the

‘ appeal is net maintaimabié. Eharefore, the present

uappeai h&s to be dismissed. Accordingiy, this

appeal is dismisaed. Liberty is granted to reyive

/

this appeal, if rgaiiy such consent had been granted

5

/-.

by the Ccmpetant Authmrity [C.u.*}

éar-

Ksm*

sdr V