Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)23ITD86(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 for which the previous year ended on 30-9-1974. The assessee is a private limited company-formed for exporting lungis and other garments to Bangladesh. No such business was ever done. There were only two shareholders viz. Sri Ali Siddiqui and Sri M.K. Raju. The latter was the Managing Director of the company during the relevant period.2. Notice Under Section 139(2) was served on the assessee and the assessee applied for extension of time now and then and finally the return for the assessment year 1975-76 was submitted on 17-2-1978. The assessment was closed as "NA" (No Assessment) on 17-2-1978. However, on 19-3-1979, the Income-tax Officer received a communication from the Assistant Director of Inspection enclosing a copy of the judgment of the Special Judge, Delhi, in CC No. 13 of 1975, wherein certain payments were indicated by Sri Narendra Gopal on behalf of the company; a report was also received from the CBI aut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)23ITD188(Hyd.)
1. These are three appeals, one by the revenue and the others by the assessee and a cross objection by the assessee. As related issues are involved, they are taken up for consideration together and a consolidated order is passed for the sake of convenience.2. In I.T.A. No. 411/Hyd./1984, the department objects to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 16,00,000 and restricting the addition to 10% thereof. The assessee is a contractor. He carried on the contract work of widening and strengthening Hyderabad-Vijaya-wada National Highway No. 9 in two stretches from mile 50 to 62 and mile 62 to 72. The contract had been awarded on 24-1-1972 for a total sum of Rs. 47,28,233. Certain disputes arose between the assessee and the State Government and the matter was referred to arbitration. The assessee made the following claims before the arbitrator :- (i) Enhancement of tender rates in consequence of delay in settling the tender. (ii) Payment on account of difference in rates because of escalatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)23ITD206(Hyd.)
1. These are five appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, dated 11-1-1986 confirming the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1) (c) of the IT Act, for assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80. The penalties imposed and confirmed for these five assessment years are as follows : For the sake of convenience these appeals can be consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. The facts leading to these appeals may briefly be stated as follows.The assessee is a firm of four partners and it came into existence in 1968. The firm is carrying on the business as transport contractors at Vijayawada. The assessee firm did not own any lorries of its own. They arrange lorries for transport on brokerage, commission or on contract basis. The assessee firm used to maintain regular books of account. It had taken a contract to provide transportation to M/s KCP Ltd. Vuyyur, of Krishna District as well as Jeypore Sugar Ltd. Chagallu o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)23ITD419(Hyd.)
1.We find it convenient to dispose of these four appeals by a common order. The common question is whether tippers used in construction of dams, etc., can be considered as Road Transport Vehicles and on that account refused investment allowance.2. The assessee, a registered firm, carries on business in contracts.In the course of the contract work, the assessee has to remove earth from one place and convey it to the other. Such movement of earth is in the project site itself. For this purpose, the assessee had purchased tippers. The tippers are hydraulically operated. The earth, mud, etc., which are loaded in the tippers are ejected by tipping the container part, Thus, unloading is effected without human agency.3. For the assessment year 1979-80, the Income-tax Officer was of opinion that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance at all because they were not manufacturing or producing any article or goods. This matter had come up to the Tribunal which held that the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)23ITD40(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the accountable person against the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty's order dated 25-3-1986.2. One Samudralla Satyanarayana Setty died on 28-5-1981. In the statement of accounts filed for purpose of determining estate duty before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty disclosed the value of the estate at Rs. 1,26,297. However, the value of the estate was determined at Rs. 6,58,400 as per the Assistant Controller's order dated 12-3-1984.3. Aggrieved against the said assessment the accountable person went in appeal before the Appellate Controller. The accountable person is no other than the adopted son of the deceased. The deceased was survived by his widow as well as by adopted son. During his lifetime the deceased and his adopted son constituted a Hindu coparcenery or joint family for which the deceased was the karta. When the matter was pending in appeal before the Appellate Controller an additional ground was raised stating that the share of the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)23ITD108(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, A-Range, Vijayawada, dated 8-3-1985 and it relates to assessment year 1975-76.2. The assessee is a specified HUF. The karta Sri K. Kodandarama Reddy, his wife as well as his son Sri Pera Reddy constituted a bigger HUP.But the karta Sri K. Kodandarama Reddy and his son Sri Pera Reddy were divided long back. Thereafter, Sri Kodandarama Reddy and his wife constituted a smaller HUP. Income-tax assessments up to and inclusive of assessment year 1974-75 were completed in the status of HUP. For assessment year 1975-76, which is now before us, the previous year of which ended by 31-3-1975, Sri Kodandarama Reddy did not file any income-tax return. On 11-1-1979 a notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee by the Income-tax Officer calling upon him to file income-tax return. There was no response from the assessee and ultimately the karta of the assessee-HUF viz., Kodandarama R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)23ITD64(Hyd.)
1.The only point involved in this appeal is about the status in which the appellants are to be assessed.2. The appellants herein are one Smt. S. Sankari and her minor daughter Miss Raji represented by her. They purchased jointly a Small Saving's Prize Deposit Receipt for a sum of Rs. 500 on 18-11-1975, each contributing Rs. 250. The Small Savings Prize Deposit Scheme was floated by Bank of Madura Ltd. and the deposit carried interest at 10 % per annum and was repayable on or after 15-6-1985. The rate of interest payable on this deposit was subject to the directives that may be issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The other salient features of the scheme are as follows : To give yourself a chance to be a lakhier all you do is to deposit Rs. 500 or its multiples just once. Deposit is repayable with 10% interest at the end of 10 years. Further you could have the luck for one of these really-worth-winning prizes in the monthly draws conducted up to September 1985. In additio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)22ITD332(Hyd.)
1. One appeal is by the accountable person and the other by the department. They are being disposed of together.2. The deceased, his wife and three sons were members of the bigger HUF. The movable properties of the HUF were partitioned long back which was recognised by the department. In the partition the deceased and his three sons took 1/4th share each and the wife of the deceased was not given a share. After the said partition, the deceased with his wife constituted a smaller HUF. The deceased died on 15-5-1983. In the return filed, the accountable person claimed half share to the wife of the deceased in the smaller HUF properties. The Assistant Controller disallowed this claim and included the value of the entire property of the smaller HUF in the principal value of the estate. So far as immovable properties of the bigger HUF are concerned which were undivided, 1/5th share of the deceased was included and there is no dispute about this. On appeal, the Appellate Controller held tha...
Tag this Judgment!