Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Karnataka State Judicial Dept ... on 10 March, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
~ BANGA! ORE "| IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT J aNGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF MARCI. 20100» s PRESENT ce THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KL. MANJUNAT a ANID oo THE HON BLE MRSJUSTICE | B. an Ni MG AR AM NAY as ALNO. 1275/2006 BETWEEN: ], THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAN CR BUI ILDING i. QUEENS ROAD BANG, ALORE 2 THEN OME: [PAN ORFICER. WARD 1} Pe(3) 0. . COR BUILDING | QUEENS ROAD. BANGALORE: | ° _ APPELLANTS (By Sri: Mv SESHACHALA. ADV.) _ M/S-KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING -- CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED -- HIGH. COURT BUILDING RESPONDENT (By Sri: TN MAHADEVASWAMY & SRES ANIL KUMAR. ADV) PA. liled u/S.260-A of LT.Act 196] AVisifig out of order dated [7-03-2006 passed in ITA Na, 629/ BANG /2004 for the Assessment Years 2001-2002. praying het, this TAT. Bangalore in ITA No, 629/BANG/2004 . dated 17-03-2006 & confirm the order sol whe. Appellaie Commissioner -- conlirming 'he order passed by the > Asst.Coniitissioner of Incorie TEX, Circle+11(8}, .Batealore. in the interest of justice ane CQUELY, This ITA coming ort "Tor. HEARING al this day, MANJUNATH J. delivered the following:- =, JUDGMENT
The revenue has forme upd this appeal challenging the orders passed by. the neome. Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangarore in JITAINo620/ Ping /2004 -- dated 17.3.2006 raising the Jollowin substantial questions of law:
"L. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the cofitract conmlemplating deduction of tax _ al source erlered into between the assessee and Mr. bakeshimean to purchase lands form sites wore
2 Rotsatiractk the provisions of Section 194 ane QOL} of the Act?
2°) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding thai the agreement entered into betieeen the _ assessee and Mr, Lakshimeut ieould not canorint of Sa contract cnc execuuion of teork as per Section 1940 of the Act sinee Mr. Lakshman wes giving ihe assessee completed sites?"
3. Heard the learned counset Jor the appellant and learned counsel lor the responderits.
/ 9
4. lis not in dispute that the respondent /iissessee hac entered into an agreement with one Mr Lakshinian to purehase the sites from out of the layout Isrmed by nS consideration lor the Assessing Ollicer asthe Connnissinner:
of Income Tax ancl the Tribuma! was whether if he assessee has agreed to purchase the sites tron a veridor it aliny sale consideration is paid on uistallment, basis: the assessee is required to deduct the lan "aL sure "or otis" When the assessee is oly a purchaser, ap "any advance sale consideration is pard the assessee has no business to dechiect the tax a source as ii is lor the seller ol the sites to pay the capital gains deperiding upon the tax payable by lim. Therelore, we "are ofthe opinion that the question of law "framed let. this appeal has to be answered against the vevenue and im favour of the assessee.
5. Accordingly. this appeal is dismissed. Os.
Sd/-
JUDGE KVN*