High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S United Bottles Mafg Company … on 25 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S United Bottles Mafg Company … on 25 February, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna


IUH E..UUl(i U? KAKNAIAEA Haul’! LU,:..’!$I ur KAIINHIAIV-I HIUH LUUKI Ur l\.HKE’lHlRlU-| “IN-.’ll’l Lunar Ur I\nnIVu-Hutu-I rslun L..uuuu ur tu-uu\IHIAn.:-I nuurv Lu

5. FORMULATE me suasmsrrzm. Quisnousé

LAW’

2:. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND scar ASIDE « k
?iX5SE§} BY THE INCG.:’~§E~–TfiX
TRIBUNAL, BANGALGRE 555254 %%&1~kk%m.L%{ 5

NCL623/BANGIZOOI DA”fEIj:._

COMMISSIONER cm~ar=m-11m% ma “<,<:1R£:»ER
PASSES 81' THE BY,.._ ' £_IGM¥VE§.$S-i{3NE:R OF
Income TAX, <:E§NTR4§.-L—-';I_RCi;.E-1, aazmazoae.

THIS rm comzuednz Erééaiexza THIS DAY,
K.' LMANJUfliATH 3., omveam Af§}IE"§QLL6WING:

up; appeai chaflenging
the bgaii§s,e__ and the arder passed by the

Incanwg. _1."a§'c ' 'flrribunaf, Barsgaies-e in rm

aa,%s2s;mg;m1%aam 15.12094.

2. fi.: e was aémimé Es ncsnsiéar than §i;2iIewEn§

‘ ” ‘A”–._VV’§::xh5ta:ét§a§’ qumtian af iii’? :=-

9 Wbetftar me raw fiecfared éy 1-as
Harafiéée Cami in M/5:. Kwaiiiy $Iscz;:& !za£ci!’::g_
amt M ear); of krtemt an be mafia under.

Sewing: 234A, 2343 and 2345 of the Act wiser:
carrzputatm: of {via} itzwtxge mafia unéer

5/..

* 1s.:=¢2rm %
CONFIRM THE GREEK OF ‘THE TAF*?VELLA”p!’E’%

.. …………. . ..n….n.n…-. mug… ua iv-wuirur-‘Il\r\ r-nun \..uu|u ur :(AgNAfA;(A H”-5H col

Section 11$? of the Act can aka be extender!
ta camputatfiars of ta-ta} mama made ‘«f£*:i:f.fi»’j?f ~

Sfifittififf 11514 sf we Act which

with a nozwbstante cfausze étirtz-:;r4.;taer L.
tote! inwme in accardance A’ ‘tJ’2e” wash «. ”

pmfits, as catrtemplatetf ‘fin.’ t;’:é=.-iééid
and saves ai} other provsii§&3s flsfvtbei’
sat:-Section (4) amn¢k~%sa%:as]% seam Wm.
wauld mmde Secéfkéfz E 2;:-é&;a::d 234::

aftizmact .. ~
ix} t¥5&f;.fi§f”Z’–V£f§¢’~.iT’j?}E$a;§§a?f_$a?w¢:!9′ haw
taker: ——– -…,,t;’.:e§ cizject of
ifitrvéucirsg .. b_T§:;2s:$i9n$ of Seatécsz:
;€Z5].£ :.1f£*:’ze Ag} Azji.-érfiance Act pertaining ta
afiessméeitf “}*§ég’§£” I_:99£?’~§8 and the Edvard
_ €,fe:i1;¢fa’r whkf}’:”c§a§_:(y cantempéatad tfwt uasier
«rféé giefavfibns, fiery av! frsterefi under
2345 5; 234: of the M was

ifafiimiia? questmns sagere yaisaé in ma ?=&Q32Qf2%4

ia?§5;ig¥j_5aré answerefi in favmzr af fine Revenue by this Cmrt

the we: passed in rm :~:o.32c/209%: is aim foiiovaed

5:; this cam in rm mzgeyxzms.

{2}///_,..

-I\.?!”‘ nwunv vr nz-uuwr-unrvn noun uvyugur ur iv-u-uw-Iunnu nturr Luuuv ur I\AiuVIJ-tu-\Iu-I fllvfl LUUKI ur nnnmntnnu nluri u..)um U2’ KAKNASRKA HIGH CO

33. In view (if the erder passad by the Qivisim Ben§?2″j§fvv_.
Cam’: in ETA NC3.32C3f2&(3=4, this appeai is its

answering we quesfians of Saw in fa”‘&?t’fi–J¥f cf’ ti;_i’.éf §?’:as}’¥e:é’.:3Ae V’

and against: the assessea.

Accordingly, the appoai iV>s’fiifi’c~.v§:eclA;”