By Sri. Y v. Raviraj, Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF JANUARY 2014 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.R.KUMARASWAMY INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5013/2013 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX C. R. BUILDING NAVANAGAR HUBLI 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD – 1(2), HUBLI …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) A N D : SRI. NOORAHMED G. BAGWALE PROP. M/S. NOORANI STEEL TRADERSNEAR BANKAPUR CHOWKISLAMPUR ROADHUBLI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) - - - - - - - THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260AOF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST ORDERPASSED IN ITA NO.539/BANG/2012 DATED28.02.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH “C”,BANGALROE, APPEAL FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2008-09 BY AN ASSESSEES IS HEREBY PARTLYALLOWED. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHERORDERS THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J.,DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The question that is involved in this appeal iswhether the cash payment made by the assessee to theRailways which is a concern of the Union of India is inaccordance with Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules? In identical matters which were heard before thisCourt in ITA 5018/2012 which was disposed of on18.09.2013, the said question has been answeredholding that the payment made to Railways which is aconcern of the Union of India is in accordance with thesaid provision. The appeal was disposed as nosubstantial question of law is involved. For the very same reason, this appeal is also dismissed, as nosubstantial question of law would arise forconsideration.SD/-JUDGESD/-JUDGELB