Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
I.T.A.NO.401/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S RAJA HOUSING LTD., RAJA MAHALAKSHMI #12, BASAPPA ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU 560 027 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI RAJA DATTA S/O RAJA JAYASHANKAR ABED ABOUT 44 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SMT.VANI H, ADV.)
AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(4) BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT
THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 05/04/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.1016/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO:
I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN,
2 II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1016/BANG/2011 DATED 05/04/2013.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is by the assessee challenging the order of the tribunal which has declined to allow certain deductions as expenditure.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the authorities have ignored the Deed of Assignment and committed serious error in not extending the benefit of deductions incurred by the assessee in the projects in respect of which the Assignment Deed was executed and therefore she submits that it is a case for interference with the impugned orders.
The authorities have proceeded on the footing that the assessee has not directly entered into a Joint Development Agreement with K.C.Shivashankar. It is
3 the assessee’s sister concern M/s.Raja Builders and Investments, which has entered into a Joint Development Agreement with K.C.Shivashankar on 31.4.1994. Therefore, the assessee has no direct connection with he said owner. The Deed on which reliance is placed is also produced before this Court.
A reading of the document clearly establishes that under the said Deed, the assessee was appointed as an agent to carryout the work for which his sister concern had entered into agreement with the owner. It is not a case of assignment of all rights in the agreement in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below that there is no direct connection cannot be found fault with. Now, the deductions claimed are in pursuance of the said contract. The authorities on careful consideration of the entire material on record have recorded a categorical finding that the assessee is not entitled to any benefit.
4 5. We do not see any infirmity in the said concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below. No substantial question of law to arise for consideration. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
nas.