9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EEPAK VERMA J. - Heard Sri Y. V. Raviraj, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. V. Seshachala, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench "B", on April 13, 2005, in I. T. A. No. 3155/Bang/2004 for the assessment year 1997-98 is before us by filing this appeal under section 260A of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... co-ownership entered into between the appellant and the other three persons to contribute capital, discharge liabilities, hold the property and enjoy the income therefrom, in equal share, in their own right and capacity as real owners of the property and for the purpose of section 22 of the Act? (c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the binding decision of the hon'ble apex cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thus, we are not touching questions Nos. (a) and (c). 5. Before the Tribunal also, the assessee was in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bangalore, for the assessment year 1997-98. The main grievance of the assessee in appeal was that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the assessee and her other three sons are the co-owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal came up for consideration before the Bench on January 16, 2008. After recording the facts, the following direction has been given by the Bench: "In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) and the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench dated March 21, 2003, in I. T. A. No. 595/Bang/ 2000 are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
