Ita/55/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Khoday India Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF MARCH 2014. PRESENT THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND| THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.55/2009 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCR BUILDING, QUEENS ROADCR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX|CIRCLE - 11(5), C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROADBANGALORE... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,)| AND M/S. KHODAY INDIA LTDNO.54, KANNAYAKANA AGRAHARAANJIANAPURA POSTBANGALORE-560062 ... RESPONDENT | (BY SRI N VEERABHADRAIAH, ADV., FOR SRI S SUKUMAR, ADV.,) THIS ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF|ORDER DATED 19-9-2008 PASSED IN ITA NO.294/BNG/2008, FORTHE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE.SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THEAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I[TATBANGALORE|INLTA!NO.294/BNG/2008,DATED19-9-2008CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND.CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF. INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OFJUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS ~~ DAY, |Dilip B. Bnosale J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING PC: This Income Tax Appeal arises from the order dated 19.09.2008 rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tridunal(for snort ‘Tridunal’) Bangalore Bench B, for the.Assessment Year 2004-05, partly allowing the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No.294(Bang)/2008. 2. In tne present appeal, tne revenue Nnas|formulated the following questions of law: “1.Whetner|the.AppellateAuthoritiesWer,rcorrect in holding that a sum of Rs.1,32,00,000/-|paidCO M/s.Knoday|BrewerlesLtd.,|andRs.63,60,000/- paid to M/s.United Glass Bottles|Manufacturing Co., in all a sum of Rs.1,95,60,000/-|paid to sister concerns was not unreasonable and|excessive as per Section 40A(2)(a) of tne Act? 2. Wnetner the Appellate Authorities were correct.in merely following the view expressed in the earlier|assessment years without independently examined|the criteria fixed in 40A(2)(a) of the Act for purposeof allowing lease rental and consequently recorded a)perverse finding? 3. Whether the Appellate Authorities were.correct in holding that the belated payment of)employees contribution to provident fund and ESI|would be an allowable deduction in view of Section.43B of the Act and the provisions of Section.36(1)(va)r.W.S.2(24)(X)of|the.Act.arenotapplicable?” ‘3.Mr.K.V.Aravind, jiearnedcounse|lforthe.appellants-revenue, in all fairness, invited our attention to.the Judgment dated 15.03.2010 rendered by this Court inITA No.120/2003 and submitted that the first and thesecond substantial questions of law raised in the present.appeal and the substantial questions of law raised in the)Said appeal (ITA No.120/2003) are identical and this Court)answered them against the revenue and in favour of the)assessee. In short, Mr.Aravind, submitted that the first)and the second substantial questions of law is squarely|covered by the judgment dated 15.03.2010 rendered by.this Court in ITA No.120/2003 and nence the same may be)answered against the revenue and in favour of the.aSS@CSSAeC 4Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee confirms tnat tne first and the second substantialquestions of law are covered by the order of this Courtdated 15.03.2003 passed in ITA No.120/2003. Hence, we.answer the first and the second substantial questions oflaw against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5.Insofar as the third substantial question of law.is concerned, Mr.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for.the revenue, at the outset, invited our attention to the|Judgment dated 04.02.2014 rendered in ITA No.480/2013|and submitted that this question is squarely covered by)the said judgment. Mr.Aravind, submits that the third)substantial question of law may also be answered againstthe revenue and in favour of the assessee in view of the!juagment dated 04.02/2014 in ITA No.480/2013. 4Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee confirms tnat tne first and the second substantialquestions of law are covered by the order of this Courtdated 15.03.2003 passed in ITA No.120/2003. Hence, we.answer the first and the second substantial questions oflaw against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5.Insofar as the third substantial question of law.is concerned, Mr.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for.the revenue, at the outset, invited our attention to the|Judgment dated 04.02.2014 rendered in ITA No.480/2013|and submitted that this question is squarely covered by)the said judgment. Mr.Aravind, submits that the third)substantial question of law may also be answered againstthe revenue and in favour of the assessee in view of the!juagment dated 04.02/2014 in ITA No.480/2013. 6.We,haveperusedthejudgment.dated04.07.7014|(ITA.No.480/2003) and.tnesubstantia]question of law raised therein and so also the substantial|questions of law raised in the present appeal. J.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee confirms that the third substantial question of law|is covered by the judgment of this Court in ITANo.480/2003. Hence, we answer the third substantialquestion of law also in favour of the assessee and againstthe revenue. | With these observations,the appeal is disposed of.No costs. TL| Sd/-JUDGE| Sd/-|JUDGE.