M/S KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORT PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BELLARY RANGE , BELLARY
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed
ITA 1654/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd., [For & On Behalf Of The Joint Erstwhile Partnership Commissioner Of Firm M/S. Kumaraswamy Income Tax, Mineral Exports], Bellary Range, No. 58, Cunningham Vs. Bellary. Road Cross, Bangalore – 560 052. Pan: Aabfk8539K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr(Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22/03/2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Gulbarga For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals]-4, Bengaluru Dated 22/03/2018 & The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143 [3] Of The Act Dated 28/03/2014, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case.
For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143Section 14ASection 234Section 37
…section. Page 8 of 12 The acid test, "did the expenditure fall on the assessee in this character as trader and was it for the purpose of the business". 27. The co-ordinate Bench in the matter of CIT & ANOTHER vs INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED reported in (2014)360 ITR 174(Kar) while examining the claim of the assessee to treat the expenditure incurred by it for installing the traffic signals as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act, had held " for purpose of business" used in Section 37(1) of the Act should not be limited to meaning of earning profit alone and it includes providing facility to its em…
