Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1994)48ITD292(Hyd.)
1. This is an assessee's appeal for assessment year 1989-90 directed against the order of CIT (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, dated 7-10-1992 confirming certain disallowances made by the ITO.2. to 13. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 14. The next question at issue is the deductibility of the expenditure of Rs. 9,70,371 which was later revised to Rs. 14,83,931. The assessee claimed deduction of this expenditure. The assessee filed a written note dated 16-3-1992, inter alia explaining the deductibility of the expenditure. A copy of the said note is now furnished at pages 35 to 41 of the assessee's paper-book No. I.15. The sum of Rs. 14,83,931 was part of the amount of Rs. 51,35,725 shown at page-17 of the published accounts of the assessee-company, a copy of which is furnished in the paper-book No. I of the assessee.16. The assessee put forth the following contentions and urged that the amount of Rs. 14,83,931 is allowable as expenditure (a) Explaining the n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2002)81ITD7(Hyd.)
1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee. They are directed against a common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax A.P.-I, Hyderabad, dated 18-9-1995, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93.2. The common effective grievance of the assessee in these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, and in setting aside the assessments made under Section 143(3) for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93.3. Assessee is a finance company. The facts of the case are in a small compass, but these appeals throw up an interesting question. The admitted position is that the assessee-company has been maintaining its books of account on cash basis and has been returning income on the said basis. For the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 also, consistent with its earlier practice, assessee maintained its books of account on cash basis and filed its returns on the same basis. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)104ITD15(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal of the assessee challenging the order dated 8.9.2004 of the CIT(A)-I, Hyderabad, as erroneous.2. Facts of the case are briefly THESE: On merits, the assessee appealed before the CIT (A) that the ACIT ought to have established the escapement of income before resorting to reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, besides failing in all respects to prove that the sale agreement in question partakes the character of a contract of a nature contemplated under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, before invoking the definition of "Transfer" in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.While so, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine as not maintainable, objecting and observing that the grounds of appeal raised being very lengthy and argumentative, as well as the appeal-form No. 35 not having been signed and verified by the Managing Director or even a Director, are opposed to the provisions of relevant R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)106ITD256(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal of the assessee challenging as erroneous the order dated July 26, 2004, of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Central), Hyderabad, cancelling the registration granted to the assessee under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2.2 The Appellant-assessee, Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee(SCEC), is a Society registered (No. 26/87) with the Registrar of Societies, Machilipatnam, Krishna district, Andhra Pradesh, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is engaged in academic: field. It was formed with Shri Boppana Satyanarayana Rao as the President and his wife Smt.Boppana Jhansi Lakshmi Bai, as the Secretary. Other members of the Society consist of their close relatives like daughters Ms. Sushmasree and Ms. Seema and brother Shri B. Rajendra Prasad. It was formed with various objects, more specifically set out in the trust deed dated 26,1.1987, and noted in para 1.2 of the impugned order dated 26.7.2004 of the Commissioner. The assessee Society had applied f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)288ITR226(Hyd.)
1. This reference arises out of the appeal, against the assessment order passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-I, Hyderabad under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act for the block period from 1.4.1989 to 18.11.1999, dated Nil, stated in the brief facts of the case by the assessee as completed on 27.4.2001, filed with the Tribunal on 13.12.2001, challenging the levy of surcharge of Rs. 3,65,680 on the tax of Rs. 86,56,800 levied at the special rate of 60%.2. At the outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the reasons furnished by the Division Bench, which led to the constitution of the Special Bench. Its reasons are extracted below: 2 The short issue in this appeal is whether the levy of surcharge in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2002, is valid in a block assessment made under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act. The tax has to be charged in a block assessment in terms of Section 159BA(2) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 113 of the said Act. .1. The undisclosed inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1983)4ITD193(Hyd.)
1. These two appeals are preferred by the assessee and relate to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The appeals are against the orders passed by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act').2. The order of the Commissioner sets out the computation of the figure of wealth as under: movable and immovable: Rs. 10,90,846.97 Less: Exemption under movable and immovable: Rs. 11,00,371.77 Less: Exemption under Section 5(iv) and (xxvi) Rs. 2,50,000.00 Rs. 8,50,371,77 The Commissioner has stated that the WTO granted exemption of the net amount in each year under Section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Act as claimed by the assessee. According to the Commissioner, this was erroneous.3. The Commissioner stated that the assessee, an Indian citizen, was living with her husband in Australia and her husband died in a car accident in March 1974. She returned to India on 6-5-1974 with two minor children. Most of the assets held in Australia, accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1984)7ITD133(Hyd.)
1. The appeal relating to the assessment year 1976-77 has been filed by Nagarjuna Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. as agents of L.H. Manderstaa and Partners Ltd. and the appeal for the assessment year 1978-79 has been filed by the revenue. Since some common issues are involved, they are dealt with together.2. The assessee is a public company in joint sector during the years and is now said to be a Government company. The business of the assessee was to run a fertiliser factory and during the years under consideration, the project was being established. The assessee had engaged the services of L.H. Manderstan and Partners Ltd. of United Kingdom to act as experts for assisting the assessee in establishing the project. There was correspondence culminating in an agreed draft agreement. However, even before the agreement was signed, the services had already been rendered and the amount had become due. Hence, there was no occasion for signing a formal agreement. The assessee applied for forei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1983)5ITD146(Hyd.)
1. In this case the status of the assessee is in question. He claims to be either as a non-resident or as a resident but not ordinarily resident. The ITO did not accept his contention and held him to be resident and ordinarily resident and, consequently, the pension he was receiving from Arabian and American company was included in his Indian income and the total Indian income was computed at Rs. 77,570. The ITO simply stated that the assessee did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Section 6(6)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Therefore, he treated the status of the assessee as 'resident'.2. When the matter was taken in appeal before the AAC, he concurred with the view held by the ITO and dismissed the appeal. He held that a person can claim the status of not ordinarily resident in India only if the following conditions are fulfilled : (ii) he has not been resident in India in nine out of ten previous years preceding that year ; and (iii) he has not during the seven pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1983)4ITD73(Hyd.)
1. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business of processing marine products and exporting them to foreign countries. It claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the extent of Rs. 2,08,196, which included ocean freight of Rs. 2,05,266 incurred for carriage of goods towards their destination outside India. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITQ allowed the assessee's claim. No doubt he allowed the same on the basis of proportionate turnover. The order of the ITO is dated 20-9-1978.2. The Commissioner on perusal of the records felt that the order of the ITO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as according to him weighted deduction in respect of ocean freight was wrongly allowed by the ITO and that the ITO adopted a higher percentage in allocating the deduction in respect of other items. Accordingly, the Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1983)5ITD656(Hyd.)
1. IT Appeal No. 837 (Hyd.) of 1982 is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the grant of registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1980-81 and IT Appeal No. 836 (Hyd.) of 1982 is also an appeal by the revenue against the Commissioner granting certain relief in quantum proceedings.2. We first take up the appeal on the point of registration. There was a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 26-2-1970, consisting of two partners, V. Gavararaju and V. Ramamurthy with 40 per cent and 60 per cent shares, respectively. Gavararaju had a son, Krishnakishore. Ramamurthy had two sons, Srinivasarao and Govinda-krishna. A fresh instrument of partnership was drawn up on 19-4-1979, By this instrument, with effect from 1-4-1979 two minors, Krishnakishore son of Gavararaju and Srinivasarao son of Ramamurthy, were admitted to the benefits of partnership with 10 per cent and 20 per cent shares, respectively. It was stated ...
Tag this Judgment!