Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs M/S Sami Labs Limited on 17 December, 2013
Bench: N.Kumar, Rathnakala
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
P RESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.111 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX-III, C.R. BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(3),
SPECIAL RANGE - II,
BANGALORE. ... 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