Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1988)26ITD319(Hyd.)
1. This is a departmental appeal. The main contention in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 7,56,590.2. The assessee is an individual having a business in sale of spirits and liquors. They had entered into an agreement with M/s. Vishindas Parasram regarding the purchase of their stock. By a letter dated 19-5-1979, M/s. Vishindas Parasram (V.P. for the sake of brevity) wrote to the assessee that as a condition of their purchases, the assessee should bear all the sales-tax liability raised on V.P. on all purchases made by the assessee. On 25-5-1979, the assessee wrote back stating that he was agreeable to the terms and conditions as stated in the assessee's letter. As far as sales-tax is concerned, he stated that he will be paying by way of Demand Draft or challan direct to the Commercial Tax Officer on the liquor sold by V.P. and purchased by the assessee.3. On 3-11-1979, V.P. wrote another letter to the assessee. In this letter, it was stated that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1988)26ITD153(Hyd.)
1. One appeal is by the department and the other by the assessee. They are being taken up together.2. The assessee and one Smt. R. Anasuya Devi owned 12 acres 15 guntas of land at Hanumakonda as co-owners with equal shares. Out of this land 5 acres 2 guntas were acquired by the Sub-Collector, Warangal for the Road Transport Department during the year ended 31-3-1966 relevant to the assessment year 1966-67. A compensation of Rs. 1,51,717 was paid to the co-owners. In the assessment year 1966-67 the capital gain in each of the assessments of the co-owners was assessed at Rs. 3,259. Against the compensation of Rs. 1,51,717 awarded by the Sub-Collector, the co-owners appealed before the District Judge, Warangal who by his order dated 18-8-1972 granted a further compensation of Rs. 60,112 and a sum of Rs. 41,606 was also awarded as compensation for severance of land.The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 for the assessment year 1966-67 to assess the above compensa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1988)26ITD406(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner dated 8-8-1985 made under Section 263. The Commissioner found that though there was delay in filing of the return, the Income-tax Officer had not charged any interest under Sections 139(8) and 215 nor initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a). After considering the objections of the assessee, he passed an order under Section 263 wherein he held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue as the Income-tax Officer had not charged any interest under Section 139(8) or 215 and omitted to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a). Thus, he set aside the assessment order with a direction to the Income-tax Officer to redo the same by taking into account the aspects of levy of statutory interest and the initiation of statutory penalties. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred this appeal.2. The learned counsel for the assessee did not dispute the finding of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1988)26ITD221(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P. I, Hyderabad made under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. The assessee carried on the business of mining of manganese ore. The assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 28,912 in respect of new machinery of the value of Rs. 1,15,648 used in the mining of manganese ore. The Income-tax Officer allowed the investment allowance. The Commissioner of Income-tax was of the view that the assessee did not manufacture or produce any article or thing and so it is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A. As he was of the view that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue he invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. After considering the explanation of the assessee he passed the order dated 20-11-1985. He held that the assessee excavates rocks containing the natural ore, crush the rocks and by sieving obtain the manganese ore, which is later washed to remove impuri...
Tag this Judgment!