Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2014
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR
ITA.NO.105/2012
BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.,)
AND
M/S TOYOTA TECHNO PARK IND (P) LTD PLOT NO.20, BIDADI, INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGARAM DIST
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT VANI H, ADV.,)
THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28/12/2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.17/ BANG / 2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING TO:I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 28/12/2011 IN ITA NO.17/BANG/2011 TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED THEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
2 THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, Dilip B. Bhosale J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PC:
This Income Tax Appeal is directed against the order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’ in ITA No.17/Bang/2011 pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08, whereby the appeal filed by the revenue has been dismissed and the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (for short the ‘appellate authority’), Mysore, has been confirmed. The appellate authority has reversed the order passed by the assessing officer dated 28.12.2009.
Learned counsel for the revenue, fairly states though technically two questions of law are formulated in the memorandum of appeal by the revenue, the first question of law only deserves consideration. The first question of law formulated by the revenue reads thus: “1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that rental income received from the
3 occupants of the industrial park is assessable under the head ‘business or professional income’ even when the assessing authority had rightly assessed the income from leasing of buildings under the head income from house property and income from lease of machinery under income from other sources as per the provisions of I.T. Act”?
Mrs.Vani H. learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, at the out set, invites our attention to the order dated 18.03.2014 passed by this Court in ITA No.30/2009 and connected matters, submits that the substantial question of law raised in those appeals and in the present appeal are identical and same deserves to be answered in favour of the assessee in terms of that order. Having confronted with this, learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and he fairly states that this appeal also can be disposed of in terms of the order dated 18.03.2014, answering the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal in terms of the order dated 18.03.2014 passed in ITA No.30/2009 and connected matters, answering the question of law raised in this appeal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE TL