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. |