Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR
ITA.NO.538/2007
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12(3), BANGALORE
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,)
AND
M/S WEIZMANN HOMES LTD CENTENARY BUILDING, IVTH FLOOR 28, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GANESH R GHALE, ADV., FOR M/S K R PRASAD, ADV.,)
THIS ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER dated 06-12-2006 PASSED IN ITA NO. 275/BANG/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED 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. 275/BANG/2005 DATED 06- 12-2006 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER & CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF TAX, CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, DILIP B. BHOSALE J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PC:
This appeal is directed against the order dated 6-12-2006 rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “B” in ITA No.275/Bang/2005 whereby, the revenue’s appeal came to be dismissed.
This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:
“i) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the miscellaneous income derived from penal interest and pre-closure charges can also be treated as eligible profit for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act when receiving income from providing long term finance being the eligible business.
ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that when computing the Book Profit u/s.115JB of the Act the assessee need not add back lease equalization reserve (reserve for doubtful income) and provisions for contingencies (unascertained liability)?”
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue invited our attention to the judgment and order dated 4th March 2013 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in ITA Nos.918/2006, 341/2007 and 343/2007 and submitted that by this judgment both the questions raised in the present appeal stand answered. In other words, he submitted that in view of the said judgment the first question of law will have to be answered in favour of assessee and against the respondent- revenue and the second question will have to be answered in favour of the srevenue and against the assessee in terms of the said judgment.
The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, does not dispute the submissions made by Mr.Aravind and consented for disposal of the instant appeal in terms of the judgment dated 4.3.2013.
In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal, by the following order: i) The first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms of the
4 judgment dated 4th March 2013 passed by this Court in ITA No.918/2006 and the connected appeals. ii) The second question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in terms of the very same judgment dated 4th March 2013 of this Court. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE