In THE men COURT ore’ KARHATAKA arr
EATER T!-H8 THE 3151? DAY 09 Junitj ”
Pxzsnzrxé _ M 5 _
mm Hownm MR..Jt3S’I’ICE V
TI-IE I-IOBPBLE MR.J EJ_ 8 TI_CE K§JB’.AR
Income Tax Appéii’. ms bfsétiés Vi:
Between: * * * ‘
1, THE COMMISSIONER (:>’T1c”«’A,’::~:%%:(V)’1=§V:E.~€f;}s’;>§i-‘.1’V_~1
c. R.BUiLDINC:.v QUE:E3NS~ £<*oA;D_
BANGALQRE-'««.. '_'~ – g
2 THE 1r~s'co:¢1~£«: '1'A.'X om-.¢ER ' _ " ,
WARD 5g:.}:'.,c: R' BLFIEQING;
QIJEENS RGAEE;
B;aNc3A_L<::,§:,E._«' _ — APPELLANTS
§.m;.%[%%'"fg%m§§& Hififi fiflifim" 0? mmmmm MWW Qfifiififi? Q? K&.&M&T&Kfl. %'€%%§~% fiiflflfi"
'gs? A£$g:2:"1»a.:VsEsHAcHA1.A, Ama, 85
' _ SRi._K_;V ARAVINE}, ADV.,]
' SR1. <3…L ASWA'?-i-E-ANARAYANA
«_ 'AiSi§WA}2YA', NQ.430, 2H9 A CROSS
" 33:? BL€%C'E§, 3320 STAGE
BAS;§VE'$H.WARANAGAR
BAN£'§;kIg€)}€E RESPONDERT
$
§
3
Q
Q
2
E?
3
[SRi K MALLAHARAG, ADV’, FOR
am. 8 PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,}
,V ‘aTHES APPEAL ES FILED UNDER SEC, 26€)~–A OF E.’I”.ACT’, £961
. ‘AR’E–i’:–}NC: GUT OF’ ORDER DATED 15~06~–2007′ PASSED IN ETA NO.
” __ SLBSIBNG/280?, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2{304-05, PRAYING TO
” …FORMU1ATE THE SUBSFANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED
THEREIN, ALLOW ‘THE A§’PEAL Abfi) SET ASIDE THE ORI)EF? PASSED
V BY THE {TAT BANGRLORE EN {TA NO. 325/ENG/200’7,DA’I’ED 15«06–
2007 CGNFERM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE COMMISS§ONER
CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
tmwwma wig” rmmmmmmmm WWW mwmm Jim? %m%M%”§”ms:~.~i=..,~..=.-‘..
£fZ€3’WW fifi mwemmm Wfififi fiflflmf’ mwwmm Mfififi flfiiiw’ Q? mwmmm mew fififim? Q? K%RWA°%”fi¢%£?% Mififl emm” Q? %%%M&’¥£%K& W63-é CQUR
WARD — 15(1), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST _AND
EQUITY AND “..
THIS APPEAL CQMING on Fog oR£>eRsv–,–.’I§rHte: 135$
SHYLENQRA KUMAR.J., E)E’.LiVEF2ED V ;
There is a delay of 83 dayksejn fili1′;gV_thi_e IA No.11
of 2008 is filed for coxjcinnatjefgjééeiay.
2. Heard S;-i.
counsel for the
appeflantsi. learned counsel
for
3. »:e§;e:1ai1ation offered in the affidavit
U efépfieafion, IA No.1! of 2008 is ordered.
Tjeondonee and the appeal is taken up for
1 ‘*7*3m__ 3’ 3.1;:- fiaxfl; V V
M V Seshachala, learned counsel far the
–~ revenue has filed a memo seeking mrmission to
. K the appeal in the wake of the revenue having
accepted the law as declared by Bombay High Ceurt in the
Case of ‘COREIISSIONER OF I191C’0% TAX Ls. KOODATEHIL
3/
Wfiififi QQLW
mvvmhmbwwfl WW5
mmmwmesmmm wwvm %…utMa:gA §%Jj_Hi’ mmmwmmwk mam £l’%L%@%”¥” Q}? mwzamtm HEGW Cflfifi? Q? KflflN&YAKfi §”‘§§Q§”¥ CQQWW Q? %%§€MM%”fi
KALLYATAN umwmsnm reported in «rm
113180171].
5. Sri. Maliaharao, learned J
has no objection for pf vapp¢g_1_
6. Accordingly, as withdrawn.
563/5
Sd/i
J u&§é’