Insotar As The 3[/7]Substantial Question Is)Concerned, The Said Question Fell For Considerationbefore This Court In The Case Of.commissioner Of'income-Tax v. Spectrum Consultants India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATBD THIS THR 13 DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 PRESENT THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICK N. KUMAR ANT) THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICEK B. VEBRAPPA INCOME TAX APPEAL No.240/2009 BBRTWEHR 1.)THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. iaTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX| CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. _ APPKRLLANTS~ (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. KHODAY INDIA LTD.,No.54, KANNAYAAKANA AGRAHARA|ANJANAPURA POSTBANGALORE.—. RBSPONDBENT BY SRI 5S. SUKUMAR, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OFTHE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER)DATED12.12.2008,PASSEDIN|ITANO.338/BNG/2008, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2003-04,PRAYINGTO.RFORMULATETH FSUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN|AND TO ALLOW THR APPEAL AND SEI ASIDE THE!ORDBR PASSBD BY THR ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA!No.338/BNG/2008, DATED 12-12-2008, CONFIRMINGTHR ORDBR OF THR APPBLLATR COMMISSIONER|AN 1CONFIRMTHEORDERPASSEDBYTHEASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER.ORINCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE IN THE INTERESTOF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,N. KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The revenue has preferred this appeal against theorder passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appealpreferred by it and granting relief to the assessee. _ 2 |Three substantial questions of law arise for| consideration in this appeal, which are as under: “7Whether the Appellate Authorities werecorrectIn|holding|that(OSUMof| Rs.1,32,00,000/-paidtO M/s.KhodayBreweries Ltd., and Rs.63,60,000/- paid to|M/s. United Glass Bottles Manufacturing Co.,in alla sum of Rs. 1,95,60,000/- paid to sister|COoNnce?rLUGSNot|unreasonableand.excessive as per Section 40A(2)a) of the Act? aDWhether the Appellate Authorities werecorrect in merely following the view expressed|in the earlier assessment years’ withoutindependently examined the criteria fixed in|40A(2)(a) of the Act for purpose of allowing|lease rental and consequently recorded a|perverse finding? 3Whether the Appellate Authorities werecorrect in holding that the belated payment ofemployees contribution to provident fund and|ESI would be an qllowable deduction in view|of Section 43B of the Act and the provisions ofsection 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act are|not applicable?’ 3.|Insofar as the question Nos.l1 and 2 areconcerned, they fell for consideration in the very sameassessee’s case in ITA No.120/2003 decided on.15.03.2010 and the said issues are answered in tavour|of the assessee and against the revenue. Following theaforesaid judgment, the said substantial questions oflaw are answered in favour of the assessee and againstthe revenue. 4Insotar as the 3[/7]substantial question is)concerned, the said question fell for considerationbefore this Court in the case of.COMMISSIONER OF'INCOME-TAX VS. SPECTRUM CONSULTANTS INDIA (P) LTD.,reported in|(2014) 266 CTR (Kar) 241: (2014)|IOO DTR (Kar) 129, where the substantial question|was answered in favour of the assessee and against therevenue. Following the said judgment, the 3[/7]substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. 5Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. od/-JUDGE|Sd/-.JUDGE Sbs*