High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 22 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 22 October, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH coma' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
OATEO THIS THE 22"" DAY OF OCTOBER 2003
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE KSREEDHAR RAG
AND  I
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE c.R.KuMARAswA§w'['IIff".

INCOME TAX APPEAL N0.259 or-' zooasff If   

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX T ' 'T
c R BUILDING . 
QUEENS ROAD * 
BANGALORE

2 THE IINCOME"TAx'V'OI*FIcEa;(TOs)"_'"'W 

WARD-16(3)'   .     I
c R BUILDING; Q'~{E~I;N3 RCIAD
BANGFILDRE -- _ I  .    ...APPELLANTS
(BY SR1: My sEsfiacIas_\I.A,"AOvocATE)
       ll  ' ..... .. 'V
*-THE O.'2.IEI~:":A:_.INs§U£zA:~IcE COMPANY LIMITED
0.0.11

, 55.3,-13% FLOOR.

I MMfN;- CQLQNY

— ~ I NEAR’!3.M.SRI CJERCLEE, mo FEET ROAD
I – INDIRANAGARE simse ‘

BANGALCIRE «sec 033 …R.ESPON£}ENT

.. ,«;_e;~r ski K N SRINIVAS, ADVGCATE}

‘ V’ INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF

-£..T.A€IT, 1961, ARISING OUTOF ORDER BATE!) 11.10.2006 AND OREER

T”—-.DATED 18.08.2006 PASSED IN ITA 960.1648/BANGIZOOS, FOR THE

-ASSESSMENT YEAR 200i-2€J€12, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED YHEREIN AND TO ALLOW

” -ma APPEAL AND 55:’ ASIDE “me ORDER PASSED av THE INCOME—-“¥”AX
I APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE m rm M03643/BANG/2005, DAӴED

11.10.2996 AND 18.08.2006 AND CONFIRM Ti-iii ORDER OF THE

6%

2
APPELLATE COMMISSIONER, CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD 16(3), BANGALORE.

we INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING on FOR HEARING

K. SREEDHAR Mo, 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
;_u._9_§_.u_E_n_I L
Sri.K.N.Srmivas takes notice fo:f~the«res;§on_o’ejhVt’,_

I.A.nos.1 and 2/2008 are

‘certified copy of the common by: thé:.._ 1″rico§’::1e- ” V

Tax Appellate Tribunal, VuB”§n§*a_l_or\ .., . jg}; rrA

no.1543/sanggaoosd’%d§1}d’dteddwdjo12.méooddvdnd Order dated
13.03.2005 is witfidd Th’o.sj.eiay of 233 days in fiiing
the Appeo’i._§s = ”

The sobsgantioi law involved in this appeal

__..is no vn*io:’?e’~res–iotegr§’___a.nd the ‘same has been decided in

A’f§vAo;u*r. of rovanue in I.T.A.no.2-45/2008 and other batch

of <::a$ es; of the judgment rendered in the said

V case, is disposed of.

Sci].

Judge

Sd/..

Judge