The Commissoner Of Income Tax vs Shri K M Rajagopal on 18 March, 2008

INT' EH1'

(TURT GP "

DATED THIS THE  ' ' k

t .

 

1- Theflammissifirwrofk '   
Inc ome~--fa§:;»(';an%i:é} Ciifiier, '_  "7
' ; 11- _Bfli1difig:?j'Quae§iaTARmd;
Bangalore" '  ' "  

2. '1"n§  jf?Ci§fi1;iiés.~;i;Jncr of
..f 'I'.ho<)me:Ta::, ("'."irs.|....t.~...-'i(l ),

.  [ & k'    R.%ABa%ag
  
" %%(Bysm~i,iv3.%v.seshaeha1a Advocate)

J   g:.1;,)_%-, 

_Z.._,_--

' » j -- V ,_ __ g  ..V'.VSh1iféK.M.Rt¥_|;ugopaI,
"  V' V__No.l1-5, 'B" Block,

li'I1lI'IlI'I.InI.I  [Ill

' 1?; 'run l\I II
"V! 9-'.'.'"..""-'§""'". """'-I '"7' "9

T %Ban"ga1ore~s6o 034. %  RESPONDENT

-r-nun

‘ “NA-“r-AKA AT u

In: I urn; ,- 021,, ,1 ,,,, 1,”, n.,,,;3.,-A ncn A ,,t¥’I’ iejnaéa
IHI3 MA 15 unit! unuur auuuon &UU’.l’\ U1 .I~;’._1.

arising out of order dated 2104.200? passed’-,in}’ITA

1433/Bang/2005 for the Aéxsesamcnl 2516′.

This appeal coming on _I’urj ”

VERMA .I., delivered the foIlowin_g:- _
Shri i’l\Ii.V.Seshaci3″éiz|«;._h ‘ ii’)’1′.

2. A moms; ‘afiljellanls seeking to
withdraw the d % and considered. The

e-.%!l:.f3*.”‘.;~:’°’e*..°=a.s,’fifi:§:.;EL…..4-ii’>56 -.-.’é!,’.’.’_’-.”.’;i.’*.-‘:”-.-.’ ll:-.3 mu-,……-1. The ap-“,.u,I_ _