Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2001)79ITD238(Hyd.)
These two appeals are filed by two companies M/s. KNB Investments (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 189/Hyd/99) and M/s. KAR Investments (P) Ltd. (ITA 190/Hyd/99). In both the appeals, the assessment year involved is the same, viz. 1995-96. These two companies have since been dissolved and merged into another group company, M/s. Dr. Reddys Holdings Ltd. on the basis of a scheme of amalgamation, sanctioned by the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide their order dated 28-4-1995 and delivered while disposing Company Petition Nos. 1 and 2 of 1995. These appeals have been, in fact, filed by M/s. Dr. Reddys Holdings Ltd. as successor to M/s. KNB Investments (P) Ltd. and M/s. KAR Investments (P) Ltd. These appeals are filed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals)-III, Hyderabad, dated 19-3-1999 and arise out of the regular assessments completed on the appellant-companies, for the assessment year 1995-96. The assessments have been completed by the Asstt.Commissioner, Company Circle-4(5), Hydera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2001)76ITD423(Hyd.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Assessing Officer for the block period 1-4-1985 Co 8-11-1995 passed under section 143(3), read with section 158 BC (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Inv.), Circle 5(2), Hyderabad, in making an addition of Rs. 9,98,000 as unexplained investment in construction of self-occupied residential property bearing Nos. 67, 68 and 69, P & T Colony, Secunderabad, is unsustained in law. 2. The learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Inv.), Circle 5(2), failed to note that the entire cost of construction duly supported by a Registered Valuer's report was explained and disclosed by Rameshchand Surana, Pavan Kumar Surana, Dinesh Kumar Surana - who were owners of the property - to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle III, Hyderabad, who completed the assessment under section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2001)73TTJ(Hyd.)401
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I, Hyderabad, dated 10-1-1996, and is arising out of the assessment order framed under section 143(3).There is only one issue which has been raised by the appellant in this appeal and that is the addition of Rs. 45,500 on account of cash credits added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (though the ground of appeal taken before this Tribunal mentions the addition at Rs. 45,000).The facts of the case are that assessee raised an aggregate loans of Rs. 52,500 from the under mentioned persons on the date mentioned there against. These loans were repaid on the dates mentioned below : Since there was an advance of Rs. 7,000 by Sri S. Nagireddy and the higher amount of credit had already been taken into account by the assessing officer in the total amount of Rs. 52,500, a reduction of Rs. 7,000 was allowed and the net amount of the cash credits came to Rs. 45,500. The assessing officer ga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2002)80ITD185(Hyd.)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) IV, Hyderabad dated 17-1-1994 and it relates to assessment year 1989-90. The appeal emanates from the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee has raised three grounds, which are reproduced as under:- 1. Rs. 14,208 Remuneration at Rs. 500 per month paid to the Directors Smt. J. Rama Muralidhar Rao and Smt. G. Laxmi has been disallowed, though it has been allowed in the previous years. 2. Rs. 6,500 Amount spent towards advertisements in Magazines and publicity for which entire information was furnished with full details of payments has been wrongly disallowed assuming the amount to have been spent under the head donations and charity. 3. Rs, 24,155 Of deduction short allowed under Section 32AB, of Income-tax Act, 1961, wrongly assuming dividends on chits subscribed by the company as income from other sources whereas factu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
1. This bunch of four appeals has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) IV, Hyderabad, dt. 23rd Oct., 1998. In fact, these appeals emanate from the order passed under Section 201, dt. 6th Feb., 1998, by the Asstt. CIT, 5(1) (TDS), Hyderabad.2. The short point raised in these appeals is as to whether assessee was required to deduct tax at source under Section 194C out of the payments made to the fabricators for body building contracts and whether by not deducting TDS as prescribed under Section 194C, assessee has rendered itself liable to be treated as 'assessee in default' under Section 201 along with all its resultant consequences.3. At the outset, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the assessee that appeals are delayed by 108 days. But in reply, learned counsel for the assessee put the facts straight and argued that there was no such delay and this confusion has arisen because of some typographical error crept in the particulars mentioned in Form ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2002)74TTJ(Hyd.)531
This bunch of four appeals has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) IV, Hyderabad, dated 23-10-1998, In fact, these appeals emanate from the order passed under section 201, dated 6-2-1998, by the Assistant Commissioner, 5(1) (TDS), Hyderabad.The short point raised in these appeals is as to whether assessee was required to deduct tax at source under section 194C out of the payments made to the fabricators for body building contracts and whether by not deducting Tax Deduction at Source as prescribed under section 194C, assessee has rendered itself liable to be treated as 'assessee in default' under section 201 along with all its resultant consequences.At the outset, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the assessee that appeals are delayed by 108 days. But in reply, learned counsel for the assessee put the facts straight and argued that there was no such delay and this confusion has arisen because of some typographical error crept in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2001)79ITD658(Hyd.)
These three appeals preferred by the assessee under Interest Tax Act, 1974 are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) IV, Hyderabad dated 19-1-2000 and pertain to assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively.These appeals emanate from the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 8(3) of the Interest Tax Act."1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) IV erred in holding that the assessee-company is a credit institution within the meaning of section 2(5A) of the Interest Tax Act and as such it is liable to interest-tax.2. He failed to note that hire purchase is not the principal business of the assessee-company, but it is only one of the main objects of the assessee-company.3. He ought to have held that the assessee-company is entitled to the benefits under Circular No. 760 of Central Board of Direct Taxes.4. He was not justified in holding that the hire transactions have to be treated as financing transaction and as such the hire charge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
1. These three appeals preferred by the assessee under Interest-tax Act, 1974, are directed against the order of the CIT(A) IV, Hyderabad, dt. 19th Jan., 2000, and pertain to asst. yrs. 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, respectively.2. These appeals emanate from the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 8(3) of the Interest-tax Act. "1. The learned CIT(A) IV erred in holding that the assessee-company is a "Credit institution" within the meaning of Section 2(5A) of the Interest-tax Act and as such it is liable to Interest-tax. 2. He failed to note that hire-purchase is not the principal business of the assessee-company, but it is only one of the main objects of the assessee-company. 3. He ought to have held that the assessee-company is entitled to the benefits under Circular No 760 of CBDT. 4. He was not justified in holding that the hire transactions have to be treated as financing transaction and as such the hire charges have to be treated as interest liable to interest-tax." 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2002)81ITD152(Hyd.)
1. In this group of cases, the first five appeals, viz., ITA Nos. 1314 to 1317 and 1627 of 1996, are filed by the Revenue for the assessment years from 1990-91 to 1994-95. ITA Nos. 1314 to 1317/Hyd/1996 are filed against the common order of the learned CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad, dt. 7th March, 1996, and ITA No. 1627/Hyd/1996 is against the order of the same authority dt. 24th June, 1996. The cross-objection, CO No. 2/Hyd/2001, is filed by the assessee-company against the Revenue's appeal for the asst. yr. 1994-95, whereas ITA No. 99/Hyd/2000 is the appeal filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1995-96 against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad, dt. 15th Dec., 1999. As such, there are six appeals in this bunch for the six assessment years from 1990-91 to 1995-96; five by Revenue and one by the assessee, and one cross-objection filed by the assessee. All these appeals arise out of the respective assessments completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee-company is de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
1. Present appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A) Hyderabad, dt. 30th Sept., 1996.2. Though appeal preferred by the assessee before learned CIT(A) was against prima facie adjustments made under Section 143(1)(a), but learned CIT(A) has erroneously mentioned the section under which order appealed against was passed as Section 143(3). When this error was pointed out to learned Departmental Representative, he admitted that in fact, appeal emanates from the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) and not from the order under Section 143(3).3. Assessee which is a limited company filed its return on 25th Nov., 1994, declaring 'nil' income. Prima facie adjustment was made vide intimation under Section 143(1)(a), dt. 8th Feb., 1995, which inter alia, included Rs. 1,09,098 on account of guest-house expenses and Rs. 40,271 under Section 40A(9). Appeal was preferred by the assessee before learned CIT(A), who upheld the prima facie adjustment. Aggrieved against the order of le...
Tag this Judgment!