M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax
2022 Latest Caselaw 10585 Kant

                            1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

            REVIEW PETITION NO.124 OF 2021
                    IN ITA NO.266/2013

BETWEEN:

M/S. BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD.,
OFF TUMKUR ROAD
YESHWANTHPUR P.O.
BANGALORE - 560 002
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
MR. SUJOY DASGUPTA
                                             ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADV. A/W
    SMT. MAHIMA GOUD, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
       C.R. BUILDING,
       QUEENS ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560001.

2.    THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)
      CIRCLE -11(2)
      RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN,
      NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
      BANGALORE-560002.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,)
                             ---
                                 2




     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.02.2021 PASSED IN ITA NO.266/2013,
TO THE EXTENT HEREIN PRAYED AND ETC.

      THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Sri. T. Suryanarayana, learned Senior counsel for

Smt.Mahima Goud, learned counsel for the

petitioner/assessee.

Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel for the

respondents/revenue.

This petition has been filed seeking review of the

judgment dated 09.02.2021 passed in I.T.A.No.266/2013.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the assessee had the funds worth Rs.120

crores, whereas the loan was advanced only to the tune of

Rs.64.38 lakhs. Therefore, the statutory presumption

arises in favour of the assessee that it has spent amount

from its own fund.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has not recorded

any finding whether or not any interest free loans were

given from the borrowed funds or from the assessee's own

funds.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the

parties, it is clarified that the remand on the second

substantial question of law is confined to a finding

whether or not the assessee had its own fund in excess of

amount of loan advanced to the sister concerns.

With the aforesaid clarification, the review petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR