{H THE HIGH com? on KARNATAKA AT 1'
DATED 'mm THE 30% ms' or JARI}A.§§'Y " % ' 1
PRESENT
THE HOIFBLE MR. warren vE1$ms..= "
mm I-mH*m.E 15:3. Jug-*.*z£5;fs« :&~.~2§AMA;mxa.-'2
I/I'.A.. nib;-§1$%.c$:é{;gt§f}4V'A.,:L .
smwvmmi: V' V V' "
1.
The of ‘I:’:i§}§31ti)3;§}C–.”71″f:i:’:?.?i’,’
<::.R.Buiz:r:Iing,"=_ ' :
Queens Road,’ 51.,
2. Tha Jain”: Com::;is~sionefA.of’ ,
Income: Tax, Asses–sme:r¢t_s’,'< "
S1-wcifii Fangs ~ 6., ' .
{LR .Builc:ii”ug, Qascns Roaé,
A . – my sigij :vé;v,.ses11achaJa, Adv.)
A!§B: V
‘=—‘M/ s.xm»mcd Pvt. ;.,:.:1.,
1’~F~.}.’?7D, industrial Area,
« j ‘ »-Jigazni
.. VVB
– V .-….,–……
‘”v.V(VI;3y’ASzi.Y.V.RaviI’aj, for
Sri. 8. Parthasamthi, Aciv.)
a:_~a:_ a;__«a:»_ ~::_ *__1’:_ «A rm
.. RESPOKDEHT.
This £.’I’.A. filed under Saciiom 26G–A of V
Act, 1%: arising out of order dated .2?.Q_1.2(3{§4″pa’$sé£:I rifgx ”
No.123/BANG/2001 for the asscsszngnt y.c:@:* u1_9i.9’i6 -9″7,’,
to formulate the substantiai qu¢s’£:ionS’v_of’.2aw «*i’11lc:)’*~2v”t’r1é*..L
appeal and set aside the <3rdt;1:_ "p3ss€:€.i' b}?' Viifiéémé Taxi"
Appellate Tribuua}, Bangalore bea fi12.,g_ §-TA N5'. 1.25;; BANG; 2001
dateci 2203,2004 and t1;{;e– of £114.'; Appeiiate
Commissioner and Joint Tax, Siaeciai
Ra;t1ge–6, Bazlgalorca " V' V ' 'V
This Ap;:seéi.._§:£;mji;2g 4¢_ ;;__ Aaggission this day, nmsrax
VERMA. J., €1eLi§s*&:1es:§ the Ibfléwingi'
7gfJungߣH?
Sfi.M§’;{.Scsha-sfizsidig, “*1§£é£’$f1ed counsei appeared for
appellanis _ VV Raviraj, leazmsd ceunsel for
S. foi;”iii«e rezsponcient,
2. H ‘– the instance of the Revtnue is filed under
fiecfioxi” the Income Tax Act, 1961, agaixmt the onier
‘ K x V ‘4¢f?§j&f€5t”§.vTi2f./.()vVi'”.2(}{)4 passed by the income Tax Appellate Tmibunai
f13.é”apA’pea1 preferred by the msponécnt ~– assessee.
7??
3. Appeal was admitted for ileaxting on the fpiififtfimg
substamia} questiorzs of iaw would arise in this a§pt’:§e;};:~ .’ A’
i) Whether the Tribuna} was COI’I”t?CI’,”–
holding that the coxumng. ;5′:;:1aAjn§
storing the storage tank,’ méééérs». 2 VV ‘.
should be treatad as é_.1_ “p.12nt axfifl as
rate 0f depreciaticm bet
despite: failing. ‘*’I:(,>.._&_r<:c»f3j:'wd' éL-:'$pg§'<:*ific
as to how the LC'oium11s
could be V mere
she1:g3:$L=;;.}:%1::e1ci:._b3iHie Ap:ex"'<:au3n in 244
ii} '"Wheflifcr correct in
=',5";ii€3.,A'::@L-'$639.3-Sfffi is entitled ta
V ,. ufi2"t§«";:4-'fl)Vi'.1:<1t af excisa duty
A — , paféiiwlé débitéd A'E<:": P 8:. L amount, when
not been actually paid
_ éuzjiig {hrs current assessment year?
4. ._ not been disputed before us that betwesn
V 1..-‘:15: identical questions of Law had croppeé up far
W 4.€0,Vfis§dV£;*atit§ti. befare the Bench ix: ITA No.244/ 2003 which came
of on 24.11.2007. The same questions Cropped
hr
up again between the same: parties in ITA 310.416]
earlisr order passed by the Division Bench of
Nr:;>.24~4/ 2003 was followed. in the
by the Division Bench of this ;§:»2=.1.”1i.€:1’ ‘V
questions of law as formulatgd hav§é;”L’:i.:éV;:$”be the
revenue .3116 in favour of thr;”‘&s«sess§aVee. “Wt; Va”<L.:-.r_:»:31"e:ii:x::g1:; {:10 so.
5. Appeal stands figafly §§:i.i}1″.no order as to
costs. . . 4. V
Sd/-3
W;
H ‘ ….. .. Q