Ita/175/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Bagmane Developers Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATBD THIS THER 1[th]DAY OF OCTOBER 2014 PRESENT THR HON’BLEK MR JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THR HON’BLEKE MR JUSTICE B. MANOHA ITA NO.175/2014 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAXCHNTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGSQUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE — 560001. ”.2. THEHK ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)C R BUILDINGS, BANGALORE. _ APPKRLLANTS~ (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTDNO.6/1-4, A BLOCK, 8 KRLOOR,BAGMANE TKHCH PARKLAKE VIEW BUILDINGCV RAMAN NAGAR|BANGALORE — 560093.RESPONDENT (BY SRI A SHANKAR & M LAVA, ADVS.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2J60-A OFINCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED|07/11/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.11260/BANG/2011, FORTHR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2JOO&8B-O9 PRAYING TO DECITHE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND OR SUCH)OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY|THERE HON’BLE COURT AS DBEMED FIT AND SBT ASID THER COMMON APPELLATE ORDER DATED O7.11.2013PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA|NO.1126/BANG/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS.DAY, N KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Sri A Shankar, learned counsel takes notice forthe respondent. 2. The revenue has preferred this appeal againstthe order passed by the tribunal. The substantial|question of law that is raised in this appeal is as under: “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatthe Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was.justifiedIndeletingthe.additionsoT|Rs.91,87,9092/- and Rs.16,96,73,063/- forA.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively on theeround that the advances made to its relatedparties were for the purposes of purchaseand conversion of agricultural lands without.appreciating that no agricultural lands werepurchased by the related parties on behalf ofthe assesses company and as such therewas no evidence that these advances were|for the business purposes?” 3. In fact, in the case of M/s Bagmane Constructions Pvt. Ltd. — the sister concern of the! assessee, in a batch of appeals in ITA No.473/13 andconnected matters disposed off on 16.09.2014, thisCourt has held that the money given by M/s BagmaneDevelopers Pvt. Ltd to its sister concern for acquisitionof land is for business purpose and has upheld theorder of the tribunal. 4. In that view of the matter, this claim relating tointerest on that advance is also not taxable and is ansallowable expenditure. This is what the tribunal hasheld. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal.No substantial question of law do arise for considerationin this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.| sri Shankar, learned counsel is permitted to filevakalath within four weeks. od/-JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE.