Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd on 17 March, 2011
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.N.Nagamohan Das
'1' (By%Sri..b'ARAvVIRAJ ADV.)
IN THE HIGH COURT 0F.;KARNATAI{:AAH
CIRCUIT BENCH AT FJHARWAD -1' , «
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY "OFfMARCH_ 2611"' '
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE-_ MAN§_IDNAfTH
. A ND * 1'
iIsTiC'E_ HQNI' N
No..2394 2 2.9
EGAMOHAN DAS
THE HON'BLE MR. J
I.T.A.
BETWEEN:
1. THE c.DMM1*§S'10':'--1:ER'Q? :..N(:QME"'fAx
CR. BU}L;DI_NG,"P.BTROAD; ' "
NAVANAGYWS:::;HU3U-._' '
THE Jo1N"1*w.C0MM fSS'{~()NER OF
INCOME
SPECIAL RANGE, .« V E,
CR. BUILDING, m3';~--"RoAD,
' _; NEAVANAGAR, HUBLI
[J
.../XPPELLANTS
('ED HUBLI, HUBLI
A M/:3 MURUDESHWAR CERAMICS LTD
KRISHNAPUR VILLAGE,
RESPONDENT
'(.B'y :§r1.H.R.KAMB1YAvAR Adv. FOR SR1 K.R.PRASAD ADV.) $7, This I.T.A. is filed u/s.2e0-A of I.T.Act, 19:51' ' out of order dated 31--O3--2005 pas_sed__"~._in.._' [TA "
No.lO88/Bang/2004 for the Asse.ssme,nt Year "2OOO~Q'l,l7..
praying that this Hon'ble Court may bepplefased "to?-._ 4' l. Formulate the substantial questions eofhliaxifv stated therein;
ll. Allow the appeal and_s_et*a_sid_e the "or.ders_7passed by the fi'"~tAT,_r' iE'>angal.ore "mi ITA No.1088/Bang'/.2i0ri4--.p if; dated'i--., 31.03.2005 confirming the V ofclezi' Appellate Commissionenaftd o;rde'r.vllpassed by the Joint»C'«:m*i'missionei<~'of~lricome 'Ij'a_x (Asst), Special Range, lrgl;_i;il:._,_li and etc. 'admission this day, L. j g:
in this appeal raising the fOllO';3V"l'flg qltiesltions of 1a'V:\
(i) lllll/ll/ihether the Tribunal was correct in holding that interest under Section 2348 & 234C of the Act cannot be levied against the assessee as the computation of income has been made under Section 115JA of the Act?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in taking into consideration irrelevant circumstances like "bonafides~i_ofi'the"=- 'V' assessee," "whether the d.efa_'u»!.tV was _ committed delib'etate|'y.'j 'tin fgai:liiighg__t:c;'--f2 pay advance ta>i'1.under'~Seetéoh' 7 A the Act whie-n__ Sectio.hi234B a.i*ritere§t is levied auto'rtnatica||y aatiherie is no dis<:r.etion?,~~ , V'
2. Heard the counee1's..fofi_hoth--"p.art~i_¢S5
3. Learne_d'c_ounse1 fo:j;the'R»e_venue Telying upon the judgment inmthe case of JOINT COMMISSIONER;:.v' Vjsfi ROLTA INDIA LTD. [(2001)iiiéi30= that the questions raised this'.aire__iequVare1y covered under the afore- saidgjudgmientiiandr the eaid judgment is held in favour of * _ thaé:g_appeVi1a.nt/ Revenue'. E"+'v.T'-«.VTrie"vl.éarned counsel for the assessee contends that the Tiriiéhunal relying on the judgment of the KWALITY ; BISCUITS LTD. Vs. CIT ([2000] 243 ITR 519 (KAR)) has paiaeediiithe order. According to him, the judgment of the iii'!/garnataka High Court passed in KWALITY BISCUITS LTD. it been confirmed by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in 2006 69 itself. Therefore, he requests this Court «the__l appeal parties, we have noticed thatilt_he...iudl<girne'nt by the Revenue wherein their note of the decision renderle'd--..l:l)§/. Court in KWALITY BISC(,§.'l"S that if the assessee fai1§ Sections 1 l5JA or ll5JB, V2348 would be made applicable. L _ , _ _ In the ciireumstaneels, 'ive allow this appeal answering the substantial,que_stionsz_o'f law in favour of the Revenue. $d/-
JUDGE Sd/~ JUDGE
5. Having heard the learnedlnieoiunisels for