Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dr T K Dayalu on 20 June, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, Ravi Malimath
QUEENS ROAD.
BANSLQRE ~ 56000 T.
2 THE; JOINT COMMISSIONER OF
§NCOME~--T1%X.
VVARD--5(4}, UNITY BUILDING
ANNEZXE, MISSION ROAD,
BANGALQRZE1 » 550027,
(BY SMT VEZENA JADHAV, ADV}
THIS TTA IS FILED S'E.::T:QR ";2TS':i>:A': OF °
I.T.AC'T, ARISING OUT OR OR£)E;R DATED' 23.;')S.20c}5
PASSED IN ITA NOTE};-@--,<EAN'S_/2001',» V-TN ITA
R0610/BANG/2001' --.FC7}R "A'SS:'§SSMENT YEAR
T997298, PRAYING THA'If'THIS;HQN'B.LE.. COURT MAY
BE PLEASED Tc» (1) E0.RTx4U1.,ATE 'SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTION OF.LAW S:TATEjE THEREIN; (ii) ALLOW THE
APPEAL ANS. SE:1fY_.AS'£DE THE}. ORUEZRS PASSED BY
THE ITAT; "BQ'éSNG£%;.LO'RE; " %_1T;.A._R'oT6 10/BANG/2001
DATED 23.SE.'2e'Q5 A_NT)M<:1I:'1Fy§ THE ORDER OR THE
COMMESSEQNER }:Nj<:oTv1E:TAx (APPEALS)-V VIBE
ARREAE _No;TT.A.._ "«ef:r.'a;5';<<;:~~1;'CTT(A)Av/0001 DATED
28. 03.200} ._ AND ASSESSMENT ORDER
PASSED EY THEJiDI£'=IT"'{ZO1\/EMISSIONER QF INCOME
TAX, SPECIAL' RA--NC;VEZ-(E, EANSALQRE VIBE ORDER
V EATE13 3o.o3,:«:{.>:jo AND ETC.
T}iI:.€§TE';3§PPEAL{S COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
V' 3,§E.H£:E9EEj'., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rfonienéiorz of the assessee that the eapiiai gain was
assessable for the year 2903 was accepted. Being
by the same, these two appeais are filed fer eer1'3.ider2r:i:e--r1 V-
the aforesaid substantial questiens ezjlaw.
4. We have heard the Eearr1e e{_ eorinsel :;appearir1*§§"fer'cu
the appellants and learneei'--v_,ee!_rbnse.E' Vappee§ijirrgV"V'ier'V' the 'V
reeperxderrte.
5. The Eearned eo1A1VVrjre:;'eA1_VVa:;fi§ee1*:'r1§' appeflanis ._r
revenue 'thee 0:': 'refieriginal agreement
dated 2645: egreemexit Show that
pessessieri'f"1eev5.I;}eer§V 3. sum ef R345 ereres
is re be pAard'_ if: etrueture which the assessee
was entitled"'*«.. at free ef The iearned Counsel further
"v.&_vsub;"r1§étte_ei that :«ie'p.e.r~:he agreement, actual possession of
"9rQperi:§'<3.xre;s_ handed ever an .3G~5-1998 and affidavit; is
aiee 'fiiedv Veffeet by the aseeeeee and despiie the same,
j 'E/he ribeirraf rags heid {hair assessment (35 eapita} gain C8,ZEf1C}f.
«.;:;,é ::i'e'r:e the year 1§97~»Q8 and is iieble ie be taxed in {he
%':«:5__/%/ N2
£2
- 9 _
year 2€}{}3~G4 when ihe entire c:er:st;rue:i0r: was ctemgxieted.
Therefore. firzekng of 'the Tribunal is erreneee.e"-«._'»_e~nd
subsiantiai questiens ef Eaw may be enswereiifiri §'9;<i{3'u._r 5:25 .
the revenue.
6. It may be noted at the 0u:sAe«: {hirer SO f'a;r.a:}. que--eKti-eri' ~.
of substaniiai question of 1a{v"3<\_:f €§:§2r irri"1ZA is 'V
concerned, a reetifieatisgi er§ie*1' «jziaeseei by the
Tribunal in dated 24-8r
2005 wherein faief iveiesue regarding
ehargeabiiigrvrgf for the first time
has said question of Law
ciees me: s;::w*:ve*"é7e'r_V eerreidevrarien.
?. Seefar' as"V-_0tr:_er'~~--eubstantial questions ef iaw are
.. .. if: is eiear--i--h.at the finding ef fact arrived at by the
'F upen the material or: record. The cements
0:' A H 'éhev ' egreenrerrt éated 28-1~}99€e, the seeend
j sup§ §ere'er::e'r3r agreemerri eaied §4~»£{}~}998, {he {hire
V.:e».s3ii§:;;~§.er:ieri£4ary agreement éareé 25-ELEQQQ ans? else {he
questiens GE" Iaw framed in {TA No.31Q5/2005 against {has
aSS€SS€€ and pass the foilewing:
ORDER
1TA¢uCx32o9/2005:sanowe§_::A3&g3;é5X2QG3¢geg dismisseci.
". W§§§@E Sfifg §§§§§
2 """