COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SAMI LABS LIMITED

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013 P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR A N D THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.111 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND:

M/S. SAMI LABS LIMITED, 19/1 & 19/2, 1 MAIN, II PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-99

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI KASHINATH KALMATH FOR SRI R. RAMAMURTHY, ADV.)

- 2 - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28/09/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.24/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYS THIS HON'BLE COURT TO:

I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN,

II. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28/09/2012 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.24/BANG/2012.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, N. KUMAR, J.,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue and allowing the assessee’s claim of cultivation expenses amounting to Rs.86.67 lakhs for the assessment year 2004 – 05 as business expenditure, relying on the judgment of this Court in ITA No.207/2011 in the case of the assessee himself. Therefore, we do not see any justification to entertain this appeal as the respondent is entitled to the

- 3 - said benefit. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration and therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

nvj