High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 22 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 22 October, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH CGURT GF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF OCTOBER 2008
PRESENT

THE NoN'0LE MR.J0sm:E K.SREEDi-{AR 

AND

THE HDNBLE MR.JUS'T"ICE C.R.KUMARfi.S.\NI}§Ib4'I?..::  I

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO7I:28?.._O.F 20000  I    

EEN:

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCDMETAX
c R BUILDING _   
QUEENS RDAD   
BANGALORE

2 THE;IN€:cIIaII:r,I"A>€:é;Ii:I=IE:EI§'-(TD¥3j"'""'V
WARD»15(3)'     . .
c; R 'Es_UILDIN*3_S, ~QuEEIsIsI§oA_D
DANGALDRE _ -   1' ...APPELLANTS
(02 SR1: "PI \{'sEsHACI1ALA, ADVOCATE)

  . I     I
I".THEIN'EW INDIA «.9I;§§~URANCE COMPANY LIMITED

D..'Q.r1£.O.5I,VNQ.9'v  j.

INFANIRY RDAD 

BANGALDRE-5 5510.001 ...RESPONDENT

{By SR1 {N v IAI/ALI, ADVOCATE)

I A 123′!-IIS INCOME TAX APPEAL is FILED UNDER SECTION 260–A OF

‘ ‘i;.”E’.,4’ICT,”‘_« 1961, ARISING 001″ DP ORDER DATED 11.10.2000 AND

V .coR.IzI–<3ENDuM DATED 20.11.2005 PASSED IN ITA ND.15o9j0AN0/2005
_ "*FOR.;THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002–2003, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE

= ..Ls000TANTIAL QUESTIONS or-' LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLow
' 'I THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX
" .. [APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1509/BANG/2005, DATED
11.10.2005 AND comuaemoum DATED 20.11.2000 AND CONFIRM THE

ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER, CONFIRMING THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARE) 16(3), BANGALORE.

2
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
K. SREEDHAR RAO, 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J.LLD_§.fl_E..l!l_'[

Sri.M.V.Javali takes notice for the respondefit. V. 4_
I.A.nos.1 and 2/2008 are anowed. The—-»pr§¢ibu’ctian Qf «. ”

certified copy of the common ordeflpaséégd fay’:

Tax Appeilate Tribunal,’ Bé’£1g_’éiore,

ne.1509/Bang/2005 dated V”zin<':_iV:'v(:2o|;§f§igendum

dated 2O.11.§?.4('V)(§::€5"V'ii15';'"Eii§.s;§én'$§§V¥§i§t}i; The delay of 233 days
in firing thé"Ap§ié2al
Th§-.f_?;b1sténtVivai»'j_§:.;ié$i0fiw~~'of law invoived in this appeal

is no more kés-Vi:nte§*–raA"vahd'Vthe same has been decided in

E"favouéé'#&br;%M:beA%%zjeve§1ue ;n%1.'r.A.no.24s/zoos and other batch

of the Judgment rendered in the said

cas eA,,,_'_'I':'I"%1AIs is cfisposed of.

Sd/:7»
Iudcfé"

Sd/-:6″

Judge

u ‘KM