Karnataka High Court
The Commissioenr Of Income Tax vs M/S Solar Exports on 9 April, 2008
Bench: Deepak Verma, Anand Byrareddy
V M.V.Seshachala, Advocate) ' 1 I ! I s t > I 5 A > 1 J 1 'i > "N THE Hifjfl CUU "i? ' AR" ' AT 3.3334 DATED THIS THE 09"" DAY.Q1§' APRIi'; .2!50.8,'_'_ % PRESENT; = BETWEEE % 1. Thé » Inca)mc4tax," ~. .» Central. 'Circla, " V. " C.'R. Bif fling . _ .. Qunpns Ruud;'Bm1galuru. .' "Thc..Iim(3.-1ic*-Tax Officcr, ._ ' C. R..Bt§i!ding, ? "Quevens Road, Bangalore. ...APPELLA_NTS gnu nMn1a \J'lUI Ill' Ll-/ A'\Y'I"\i AIVQ. M/s.Sulttr Exports, _ Na.24, Tavmekere Man} '7'" Tavarekerc, " _ " Bangalore. , $$$$$-. '-, . These IT./ks are fiit1d"und_cr;Scauti91:t260-A of I. T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated i'3.__(.)7;--200T passed in ITA Nfis:.460r'¥'safigr'2{){}6 afid~4fi»t{Bafigf2{}fl6'_"He Afisefismafit years 2001-02 and re:spc§:tit}el'y. .. ("-1 warn 'us : Thfiés Lrl 3l'lil"£:§- G1': {fir Vadlnis:-iii: .0 VERM.A.tJ,§"deliVB--;ed merit aringz; 2! ,... 5' I _ .. for the appellants. ./ Records perused. 7' . _ .-I.. .. ....... ........ '.. 'J.-_ 0 'B§JLlV1 111:5-51 puma uuvu ll7I.7»€.'a1J. Plfiifi tau '2 '- 41;'; .'_~~_.__..... 1...--. _.....l L . U Sé'ctiun':2605-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hercinafler referred *£u.__as Act' for brevity) against the common urdcr dated J) 12007 p_.-st;t_1 by the Incumc-Tm: Appgllatu Tribunal ' H r\ n - I - 1' bangalurc, lfl TUVUI1 U631 P'!'1A'I.I' 1 A.Nos.='t60 and 46i:B'ang/'Z006 10]' the assussmcnt years 2001-2002 and 2000-2001 respectively. I "ED " .,.V.-';'.,I...._2..... 1 ..| 1.... 11 LIKJIIUIIIBIIJ I Illa-L LVLHJI ll 4. The grievance cf the revenue is that % Section 43B 01' the Act permitting 0. ESI etc., subsequent to the close I .
belere the retum 3 UL' disallowance must be upheld. tiivsptited before us that the proviso has been Act, 1987 effective .{'rum_"l4 appeals prejtrretl by the revenue i;aik6';7\)ceIi -:iis:"nisse{i;'t' .0 and connected matters, which came to be 0' éttefietihtisrtxerits on 03.07.2007. Alter elaborate discussion on utl1eiW:_questiuns projected therein, the Court came to the _.. .4I._..._. -._...- I L__ .__.__-...._...l ' IL 1:: qtiisstnu us an L6 us; xswensu iigflifist um viéevenue and in favuur of the assessee. It was further held that revenue has to accept the payment c1'ESI, PF etc., paid by the "*0 assessce and give the deduciiuns of H131 amuunl..*i%=1 l"i{Vc:1i:J'r--w1)jik'--' assesses as claimed by it in its relum; -
4.:--1..
' ' ' .. 3.. .. ,. ': ...';...;.}. "L;'_' .'i.'.=__. 4;:
6. II} l!'6 u"u'L in 5116 aiarus I '1 Ju-:3 61116111, ILL_ii_:l._IlI1t:i [JG umpuicu E T that the questions have 'a1.readyV'Ec'ofi:' @112-i._\'-\'(5I't3'(i'VVi))lVAVVlvl1¢5 aforesaid judgement, which would ho}-c'l:_ appeals. Thus, without answ¢3Iii:§.;.L,w1'Ehc "qutcislibnig Awt:°diuI31iss 111:: appgals, Th-
'i'ihe:<:fii:ir';be réiai.1j6{i'_; ._ ' sd/1';
.....
cal» i.J\-*1 judge