Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs M/S Page Apparels Mfg on 30 May, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT 0:: KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 30*" my 0;: MAY 2011
PRESENT 2 V
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE v.s,s,:xB_.;».~:--zé:¥{:.:j: F.
AND
THE HCJWBLE MR.3uSTi£;_E R.é>;v_:_ ':v;AL:m"§;?¥ §V_:
I.T,A.NG.3<;5;':é'%Gl_Q V ' V
BETWEEN: K 1' K
1.Comméssianer 0!' Iejgoime T.a>£_~II'f['~.V ., MangaiorVe,. ' - ~ 2, Deputy cfi_e.:j':' sf' I'ricé,_rng Tax CErc¥e~'3_VV:2(1) »'_ _ ._ '_ 5V Bangvatgrxe, "'i:;; . MAPPELLANTS {By Sri I; »A d'as§'Ca.'té) AND:
V.$153.""Pég5»é*AfiPA5Fef$A?%?i?§(P) Ltci, aggma Rs3_ad,'«§§dm__manaha!§E Bar*:ga§::»r._e"--«.:--u L§6{)_L¥68g RESPQNDENT ETE. ('fled Lmfier Section 263% sf LT.Ac'g, 336:
5i,*' ~.__Vgrésing 'c;:.:;';: 9? Qrder dated 3706,2018 aassefi in I.T.A.Ne. ' ..:L15Aé$U-{Bang/2802 far the assessmerzi year 1996~»9?, gssargzisig E3 fmmuiate the substantigé questiersg 0:' iaw
-...'.-stészteé therein and set aside the csréer dated $7.S§.2G:§ §_a__37se<j by me ET'£x'E. 'B' 3e:':e;:%2,. Banggiere, in agpeai §re::€eé%:2§s fiés. ETA. 1E4§j5angf2€;§2; $3 smzght far E5: «~ Vihig amieaég is": the §§3§EE?ES'E gfgusiiie amt} equétyg -2- This ETA earning an for admission this 1 eIa.y, SABHAHIT 3.; deiivered the feffowéng: JUDQMENT The substantial questions ef"'Eex%v"fije.t is this appeai are:
2) Whether en the fac'es 'eend eir<:.=.;.fTssste;=ne'e>sefsthe case, the trmunai$weVs'».ri§¥'3Ti in' Eexae:.AAirz..:§ho¥dIng that the e's_s€:sSe_e ;Vj_e%'e"s.._'L*v.e:m:§:Ied to 100% depreciation Wee a'nVei~-'.j'¢§;:_e--~chinery even whergies-seni:AiAai ::»<:'<j:'V,r=:::ii.t;iAef's_j;f.~:~_setfoixt in Section 32 pf :'1;h_e51i:n;r:os"fie_é_"Fex --AeivvhesWfi0t been satisfied V """ H WAh.etVhe§:fle:2 factsehd circumstances of the "eese,: gees right in few in dismissing pfeferred by revenue ever} when met-eArxie'§s of: record estebéished that the p%an'::
m'e'C'h':'h'ery on which essessee had ciaémed V'*sc3»v'e;:§"ree§etéon were net put is use for business fer more than :80 days in previeus '3§e'ers as required ueder Seetéen 32 :3? the Z.'§".Aet fie eieim deprecéatéen?
Efze essessee deimee deduetien fez ..'_ @-'i'ee?eeietiee ee eéeei eee machinery weer Seetéer: 32 ef the LT.Ar;'¥:, The Assessing Officer hele that he is entiitfee to 50% depreciation since the machinery had beer}Vr'.:.;:'seVe for iess than 180 days. Being aggrieved finding, an appeai was preferred by the asses--se'e, "
the same was remitted beck to4€}ffi:_e:.;o.' Thereafter, the Assessing Office; passeean ortiieri 50% depreciation. Being serne, an appeai was filed before;::4fs«e of iricome Tax (ApoeaIs)eIII, Barjgaiore', Authority aiiowed the the same, an appeai V"t.rie'év"§riCiome Tax Appeiiate Tribunaijsses%q§igV;_op;§5:'§.iii-i /: V:%§% Ne.ViV'$4O/Bang/2002 by the revenueyviiarjo' true fiied a cross objection in CiO.Ne-.3.4/Berries/Z3¢%3,Kmifiierein the Tribunai dismissed the =f 'a;>pe'a.{' so oirzjéer oéiieid o?:o6.2o1o by heiciiing that tax Le, iess than the machinery iimit presa:.§ibe_c% CBS?
H The seid finding of the "frieoeei eee Eirze x%"'--.':evo__estier2s 'see: new éreiseé in this eooeei is eireeey feesezefed by this Semi: in see ease ef Ceevreisséeeer of Incame Tex ane' enether vs. Sri,Chamundeshwer;' Séiger £151., in ETA Ne}-43/2064 reported in (2009) wherein the question cf Eaw as raised in th_ijs__ep.pei§_T£"~Save'5 been answerecf against the revenue; Fe'f£ew't'r}g-ithei1'eVa,si3f1Vs assigned therein, we hate {hates s'u.Ab's:antia[§:..2%;q'esféor*:.{sf V Eaw arises for determination as'su:b'stant§ei .g:V;1j'esiia.rés taw that is framed in this apb*e.eI m'eki1<'3e--:és Vaakeady 'aHris\;?§.?ered by the afsresaid decision. appea! is dismissed.
séiéi 1 " " " V Egzége 33% Essfigé . '*?f's?*V