THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. M/S. K.R.S. ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD
[Citation -2015-LL-0921-10]

Citation 2015-LL-0921-10
Appellant Name THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Respondent Name M/S. K.R.S. ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/09/2015
Assessment Year 2008-09
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags letting out • question of law
Bot Summary: THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,VINEET SARAN,, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT In this appeal, the following two substantial questionsof law have been raised: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating that the dominant object of the assessee was letting out building and providing furniture and fittings and other facilities for better utilization of the building and to get higher rents, the same constitutes the part of the building and any amount received towards such facilities constitutes income from building liable for tax under the head income from House Property 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in directing the assessing officer to recompute disallowance 3 using the ratio Rs.2,40,59,055; Rs.2,96,55,774, which worked out to Rs.2,64,174/- assessee company got relief of Rs.98,580/- even when the directors duties are apportioned over the entire business of the assessee and the expense claimed on directors remuneration have to be calculated on pro-rata basis, i.e., 3,30,36,912 : 4,37,14,829, accordingly Rs.3,62,754/- was rightly disallowed and added back to total income by the assessing authority 2. Heard Sri E I Sanmathi, learned counselappearing for the appellants as well as Sri A Shankar andSri M Lava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel for the parties do not disputethe fact that the first question of law is covered by thedecision of this Court in the case of Commissioner ofIncome Tax - vs - Velankani Information SystemsLtd. Learned counsel for the appellants hassubmitted that the appellants are not pressing the secondquestion of law. The appeal stands dismissed as we areof the opinion that no question of law arises fordetermination by this Court.







IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015

PRESENT

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR

ITA No.252/2015

BETWEEN:


1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
C R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11(5),
BANGALORE. .. APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.,)

AND:

M/s. K.R.S.ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
No.337/1A, 18TH CROSS
UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS
BANGALORE-560 080. .. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHANKAR AND SRI M LAVA, ADVs.,)
2




THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED
23.01.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1101/BANG/2014 FOR
THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009. PRAYING TO
DECIDE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR
SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE
FORMULATED BY HONBLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT
AND SET ASIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED
23.01.2015 PASSED BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, `B BENCH, BANGALORE AS SOUGHT FOR, IN
THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEES CASE, IN APPEAL
PROCEEDINGS IN ITA No.1101/BANG/2014 FOR
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
VINEET SARAN,, J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

In this appeal, following two substantial questions

of law have been raised:

1. Whether Tribunal was correct in not
appreciating that dominant object of the
assessee was letting out building and providing
furniture and fittings and other facilities for
better utilization of building and to get higher
rents, same constitutes part of the
building and any amount received towards such
facilities constitutes income from building liable
for tax under head income from House
Property?

2. Whether on facts and circumstances of
case, Tribunal is right in directing the
assessing officer to recompute disallowance
3




using ratio Rs.2,40,59,055; Rs.2,96,55,774,
which worked out to Rs.2,64,174/- assessee
company got relief of Rs.98,580/- even when the
directors duties are apportioned over entire
business of assessee and expense
claimed on directors remuneration have to be
calculated on pro-rata basis, i.e., 3,30,36,912 :
4,37,14,829, accordingly Rs.3,62,754/- was
rightly disallowed and added back to total
income by assessing authority?


2. Heard Sri E I Sanmathi, learned counsel

appearing for appellants as well as Sri Shankar and

Sri M Lava, learned counsel appearing for respondent.


3. Learned counsel for parties do not dispute

the fact that first question of law is covered by the

decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of

Income Tax - vs - Velankani Information Systems (P)

Ltd. in ITA Nos.374 & 375 of 2011 and 273 to 276 of

2012, as also decision in Commissioner of Income

Tax - vs - M/s.K.R.S. Enterprises P. Ltd., in ITA No.305

of 2012, wherein said question has been decided in

favour of assessee and against Revenue.
4




4. Learned counsel for appellants has

submitted that appellants are not pressing second

question of law.


5. As such, appeal stands dismissed as we are

of opinion that no question of law arises for

determination by this Court.



Sd/-
JUDGE



Sd/-
JUDGE




mpk/-*
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. M/S. K.R.S. ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD
Report Error