Ita/487/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Lm Wind Power Blades

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREDATEKD THIS THE DAY OF AUGUST, 2014| PRESEHBN THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR| AND THR HON’ BLE MRS.JUSTICEKE RATHNAKA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.487 OF 2013 BRITWHBRE 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. oDTHE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE 11 (09),CIRCLE 11 (09), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. APPRLLANTS | (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) | AND: M/S LM WIND POWER BLADES|(INDIA) PVT.LTD |PLOT NO.85, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE IJ, THIMMANAYAKANA HALLI,DABASPET, NELAMANGALA TALUK,BANGALORE (RURAL DISTRICT)-562 111. RBSPONDEBNT (BY SRI. AMIT SINGHANIA, ADV. FORSRI NANDISH PATEL, ADV.)| THIS INCOMB TAX APPBAL IS FILED UNDERSECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING. OUT OF ORDER DATED 17/05/2013 PASSED IN M.P.NO.50/BANG/2013 (IN ITA|NO.1091/BANG/2011),FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, PRAYING|THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO: 1.FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OFLAW STATED THEREIN,LAW STATED THEREIN, Il.ALLOW THR APPKAL AND SHIT ASIDB THRORDERPASSEDBY|THE.INCOMB-TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN M.P.NO.50/BANG/2013|(INITANO.1091/BANG/2011) DATED 17/05/2013 ANDCONFIRM THR ORDBR OF THR APPBELLATECOMMISSIONER.CONFIRMINGTHE.ORDERPASSEKD BY THR ASST. COMMISSIONBR OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE. ORDERPASSEDBY|THE.INCOMB-TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN M.P.NO.50/BANG/2013|(INITANO.1091/BANG/2011) DATED 17/05/2013 ANDCONFIRM THR ORDBR OF THR APPBELLATECOMMISSIONER.CONFIRMINGTHE.ORDERPASSEKD BY THR ASST. COMMISSIONBR OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE. THIS APPBAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HBARINGTHISDAY,N.KUMARJ>DELIVEREDTHE.ROLLOWING:ROLLOWING: JU DBiGMENT Thisappeal1S|preferredbytheRevenue,challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, on theM.P.No.50/Bang/2013 dated 17.05.2013, filed seekingclarifications specifically on non-transier pricing. Asthere was no order of stay, the assessing authority hasproceeded to pass order. © 2. The assessee has preferred an appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel. In view of the same, theappeal is dismissed as having become infructuous and 255�;04�?A=;4=;/A=1�?A>58�94�>6@48�947A64�;04��/13>;4� �41A5>;/A=��2=45�� ����������� =<E� ������� ������