...1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 307" BAY OF MAY 2011 FRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE v, GgS;£3gvS»F§;.'1x::.Hi:T:."~ 1% ' L
THE HOEWBLE MR.3u»sT1cE”eg:;vIA. MAE:e:§#g’fH~ ”
BETWEEN: ”
1, The Commissioner of InL::df:ie–__.te>reu.._V .. ____ H
2 . The Ad df; .CiilfiimE4333-Q5E§.fV.:QI5«I..n c:~dme»-tax,
Circ!ezy:.6(‘3};._:nMunjbai’;- ~ ?
‘i§’he__£s¥5A?s;i§”i:a«Ee_:ii’£fos2fih*:.§.ssi<.mer of Income Tax
C'§.rcEe–1:{4',"CV.'R._.Buéiélgfifngs, Queens Road
Bar:gaI~ore;"- ' APPELLANTS
U)
(By';f:$ri._M.\!: Seehechefa, Advocate)
E?!/sf. §ne4é'r.$iei»§.T"V'R*'e'nd (India) Ltd!
Solitaire Cotfecfirete Par§<—-I\:'
Unfit Ne..s.'41"1 & 412
I Fioezz ;%,ndher§–Kur!a Read
A /§.nVd_heri'-'{E), Mumbai. RESPONSENT
This ETA fiiee Esme: Sectéee 253% of IIRAEE, :96:
-~.a::”%s:ng eat 35 Greer dated 398-2338 passed if’: f.TLA,Ne,
as w§–§’s:h<:E:*z3wn.' "
-2»
3804/Mum/2305 for the assessment year 2001—2002,
praying to formuiete the substantiai questions pf faw
stated therein and to alicsw the appeai and set ashje the
orders passed by the ITAT Baegafore
Ne.38C¥4XMum,z’2€}QS, dated 38-G8~2CI1D and ::o_nfi§m,§r;-gV;~tI”:e
erder ef the Appefiate Cemméssiener cenfimz th’e.Tjeer:£veTk
passed by the Assistant Commissioner ef ‘E..r1ce;j”2e4 T’a:>’g3_e23:’§”; ‘ ‘
~. ‘In §2’i’efw_:ef.vfhe ‘s::.’bmission made by the Seamed
Counsei é’p.pea_riHg fer” appellants, appeai is dismissed
sefs
ESEQE
Séfg
E3333