Karnataka High Court
Fathima Bai vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 5(4) on 17 October, 2008
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN gag aisg CCUR? 9? KARNA?RKA, BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 1?w DAY QF oCToB§Rm2Q§8;""'* PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE K.SRE§§§RR Rag _ J ""
RED THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE c;R;K@M§§A$fi@fi£= ETAN0;43ELOF:QOQ§f BETWEEN 5_ 1 FATHIMA BA: z "_V NG.7C T sRoss,rRAmA:Aa REBDYHL&%0UT;:'7 'BENSON Tewm V u 5REGRL©RE*m.5600?8 %%%% *_'jj" §_VF¢_; . A?FELLRN? ray Qfi};'RAGH§RRMAN & CHY?HANYA+ABV.} "E %HD :
db-
._w,.
L :'"'?HE INCQM TAX GFFICER WARD §< BANGALGRE {By Sri : M V SESHACfiRLA --RDV.} The .r:.<.';. held 'that the :m~:a:;1:;%4:=;;a:::V%Jéa§Le'. ' A' price of Rs.5OGOOO/W i3:"fidt*fiinv@$§®d és°A reguir@d u/S 54(2) Qf t$e E}T; 2R§£} Therefore, the assesseéH®s'fiofa§fi$ifi§§$ ta exemption and tha%fthéN§§$§%$ee %$ iiable to pay <:a§1it:_a1 q%a:;§: _ L~s~::?f '%"~1'»:"<__.s{;509000/-~. The C.I.'Lf'4._V Grder G5 the R5Qf€,§$éfl £§é%§fléi éiéa upheld the arder',of-- ihe; A;®fw,The assessee is in VThe "faliowing is the substantial " qué3tiQn,p§f_ law that wmuld arise for consideréfiifinz "k.Wh§§§er the Tribunal justifiad in N; §@ldéB§w that the Seposit of R$.§QO0OO/~ .ma§§~ by" the .Rppeliant in a Ibank .Acc0nnt R" before the due date for filing the return ' '. t3fT incoma is not eligible fer dafiuction under section 5% cf the Act under the 13 of law ifi favour of ?he a3$e3§éa. °§h . appeal is ailewed. ,w-_