Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Sea Rock Investments Ltd., on 13 June, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, Ravi Malimath
-3-
stated therein and aiiow the apeeai and Se: aside
passed by the ITAT, '*8' Bench, eangaioiie"<:«i:_~;..i._;*:';;_'*«_
No.123_9/Bang/2869,, dated 53.05.2810.
I..T..A. NO. 35 2010
BETWEEN:
1. Commissioner of Inceme
Bangaiore.
2. Joint Commissioner "ef
Officer (Asst); Spe_c_iVe'i Range '
Mangaiore; 'APPELL/-RNTS
(By Sri. E.I.:_ «, g«:'§q.cate}ie*. M
AND: " i .. " " '
Mfs. Ma.,n.-gaie Irivestme-nt
Ltd", Syndicate.i',idQAu'see ,
Manipalaa ' ' i
_ . RESPONDENT
(By Sri S P'eirut%i;ase'ra.iin'i_,".¢;§2/iacate)
appeaiis fiied under Section 260-A of I.T.Act,
I-.' '=:i,96'1."aifi~sin'g.. out e'f""order dated 03.05.2010 passed in
.i.'.'Vi';.4_V.ix.'s'f,V~v.i12§i;'B_ang/2809, for the Assessment Year 1996»-
"i9'7,i.pi*ey'in_giviie._f§;s*muiate the substantial questions ei' law
states' th'e_rfe.ir2'T;{and set aside the appeiiate order dated
O3.0_S.20,1.0 gassed by the ITAT, 'B' Bench, Bangaiore in
V --V a;:~eeei.p"seCe'edings ITA Ne.1124/8ang;'20CI9.
V is Tiiese appeais earning on fer admission, this day,
V"«f§:"%;B5_i-iA§i?:%-'EST 2., eeiivered the feiiewieg:
'[3,,
JUDGMENT
rm No.35:/2010 is fifed bgthe.re\:e§:~t:e"~:basing" 'V aggrieved by the order dated 03::»Q5.:2017O4"p.esse'd"bgr---..the§:A Income Tax Appelfate Tribuné_i'«é..r_) ITVA-..E\fVe.1123/8.r:g_/Qcél fer the assessment Year 1906-97.V__:4_0:""-0
2. ITA Ne.352/2"0ttQ_,is.'4'b§§('-t%fie_Vrevenue being aggrieved by the'--erder"'d'a.te§! 'eassed by the Income Ta>§__ Bng/09 for the IT filed by the revenue being aggrieved Vr'j:_e;'ted 03.05.2010 passed by the ...,.A1ncQete'VvTaXVAe.p'e!sEet_eHTrébunaf in ITA No§1124/Bng/0? fer _assessme'r2t__ year 1996-97, wherein in all these ep~ee'ati's,h'ttie«.Tééeunaf set aside the order passed by the gVfisgspeétkafcey,AL§ither%ty and remitted the matter back te the "..jt;€1sses.sAingV" Autheréty fer reeempetatéee ef the eapitei gains in accordance with Eaw after censidering assesseegs contention an the cost of aequisitéon, the arbitration avJa':*»:i. and aiso the quoted price cf shares and the asseese-e..'Vsh__a'§»l§ be given an opportunity of hearing.
4. In an appeai i.e. 1TAha.f_89/é'oQ2; whawé:'E*§§r9§y«Ci\$Egd"" V identicai questions of iaw, this the foiiowing the substantéai -a_{§'est{<A)n§;..of«..§_ayQ"«:hat werwe raised in that appeal:
i) Adf"V.'S%:-aahes hetd by the ais--se§eVee and M/s.Manipal i_Vih'1Vited to various persons " 'drama Msu}gl%iV'jQ§:e'Ra%;%_3h,'37,49,633/e in excess of the received would be iiable to taxes?
5:? assessee has said the shares te ether pedrsens for consideration under the guise af . famiiy arrangement the assessee cemgaany is not iiable to pay the capitai gains and the said E {A xafi/}