Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Mandhana Bornemann Industries Pvt ... on 26 November, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MA_NJUNA'I*H,--~.._
AND = T
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND A.
ITA NO.3187[2005. H
BETWEEN
1. The Commissioner of Income--i'a.;<Q1'--_lV_
C.R.Bui1ding, Queens Roads
Bangalore. _ "
2. The Joint Commissioner.of--1n{ierne;~tax
Qu.eens_Ro'ad_,a --. "
Bangaiorei ' '
Special
Appellants:
(By _ .\}.ShVe"s11'1aohala, Advocate)
A M/_s .l*m:é;:1ar;a1aa Bornemann Industries Pvt. Ltd,
Bangaloire 17.
V' is Sari. S.Shankar , Advocates}
No,9O/9.1;aA'7ZGi Main Road,
III Phase, Peenya Industrial Area,
Respondent:
This Appeal is filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.81 1/Bang/-12002, dated 4-7-2005 and confirm the order passed. the Joint Commissioner of income Tax, SpecialA..R-angel.-1; V. Bangalore.
This appeal coming on for hearing,-..::l'this. 'idajg, "
ARAVIND KUMAR J , delivered the'follo*.vi_n'g : _:. . JUDGMEN;l'~V_' This appeal is filed assessee it the order of the ITATVpassedl'in=ifi5AlE\Io.81'll/Bang/2002 dated 437-2005. The No.1 raised in thisiappeall 'l law declared by this _;l~lon'ble M/s. Kwality Biscuits holding A fir) levlyyllllofl interest can be made under .:.::2.34B at 2340 of the Act when A. of total income is made under Section 1 l5J of the Act can also be extended to AA computation of total income made under it Section ll5JA of the Act which commences with a non--obstinate clause to compute jtn,e total income in accordance with the profits, as contempiated in the said * saves all other provisions of the Act"un.d~er"'sub_-- Section [4] of the said Section; include Section 2343 & 2341c ofthe - = V o
2. Whether the V' have ' taken into c_onsider_ation'V»_._V the of introducing the fiirovisiensr.'of_Section 115J of the Act, the" to assessrne*n:t':~. yeiar the Board contemplated that under the new levy of interest under Sectiflfii . 234E._ " 234C of the Act was " _{ ' n1andatorg._f'?V :visd:hoted during the course of arguments that sirniiary of law was raised in ITA 320/2004 which has been answered in favour of the revenue and the assessee in the said appeal by order dated 51,5» 30-9-2009. Hence, foliowing the said juc1gme:r1t__,_ the question of law in the present appeal is answe10{ed:"'i1f1 favour of the revenue and against the appeal is allowed. "
:S'd/'*' e ; ;sUDGE