Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1992)40ITD319(Hyd.)
1. These three appeals by revenue pertain to three different assessees and rotate round the common facts and relate to the assessment year 1981-82. For the sake of convenience, these are consolidated together and disposed of by a common order.2. Shri G.S.R. Murthy, learned counsel for the assessee appeared before us. It was submitted by him that facts of the three cases are identical. During the relevant assessment year, assessees sold agricultural land situated within a distance of 8 km. from Rajahmundry Municipality to various persons and claimed exemption from capital gains. According to learned counsel, in view of the decision of J.Raghottama Reddys no [1988] 169 ITR 174 (AP), capital gains on the sale proceeds of agricultural lands is not exigible to tax. It was further submitted that even after the amendment made in the definition of 'agricultural income' with retrospective effect from 1-4-1970bytheDirect Tax Law Amendment Act, 1989, the ratio laid down in J. Raghottama Reddy's ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1992)40ITD1(Hyd.)
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Hyderabad and relate to the asst. years 1985-86 and 1986-87. Since issues involved are identical, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed of together by a common order.2. The status of assessee was taken as' Association of Persons'. The accounting year of the assessee ends on 31st March. The assessee is following the mercantile system of accountancy. The name of the assessee trust is Md.Omer Family Trust. This Trust was created by a registered deed of trust dt. 3-4-1982, for the benefit of their nephews and their wives and comprises of 59 beneficiaries. These are sons of late Md. Omer and wife and children of the sons.3. Six of the beneficiaries are trustees also, whose names are as under: Md. Yaseen and Md. Anwer, each of the trustees were paid salary of Rs. 18,000. Three of the beneficiaries, viz., Md. Layeeq, Faheem and Muneer were also paid a salary of Rs. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1992)41ITD280(Hyd.)
Where continuation of registration of firm was refused due to delay in submission of Form 11A, which was caused for the reason of giving away the new partnership deed to a bank to obtain overdraft facility, the same was appealable.The Income Tax Officer not only refused to condone the delay but also refused to grant continuation of registration for assessment year 1987-88 and also treated the assessee firm as unregistered under his orders dated 31-12-1987. Continuation of registration should have been granted to the assessee firm and from an order refusing grant of registration, an appeal lies under section 246. Further, under sub-section (3) of section 185, the benefit of registration once granted can be extended to subsequent assessment years, provided the firm filed a declaration under section 184(7).Distinction between registered and unregistered firm has been dispensed with by the Finance Act, 1992.Assessing officer was not justified in passing orders under section 185(1)(b) as h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1992)43ITD93(Hyd.)
1. These five appeals by two different assessees for assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 rotate round the same issue and are, therefore, disposed of by a common order. The brief facts of the case are as under.2. The appellants are two different firms which took contracts in earth works and dam works at Boggulavagu in Karimnagar District, Yeleswaram in East Godavari District and Kothur in Cuddapah District of Andhra Pradesh and some contracts were also undertaken in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The contract works at Boggulavagu and Yeleswaram were given by the appellants to sub-contractors on a royalty of 1% of the gross bills. The main contention of the appellants is against rejection of the appellants' claim that they had given the works at Boggulavagu and Yeleswaram to sub-contractors on royalty of 1% of the gross bills. This claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the income of the sub-contractors was assessed in the hands of the appellants. In o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1993)45TTJ(Hyd.)282
These five appeals by two different assessees for asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1983-84, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 rotate round the same issue and are, therefore, disposed of by a common order. The brief facts of the case are as under.2. The appellants are two different firms which took contracts in earth works and dam works at Boggulavagu in Karimnagar District, Yeleswaram in East Godavari District and Kothur in Chddapah District of Andhra Pradesh and some contracts were also undertaken in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The contract works at Boggulavagu and Yeleswaram were given by the appellants to sub-contractors on a royalty of 1% of the gross bills. The main contention of the appellants is against rejection of the appellants claim that they had given the works at Boggulavagu and Yeleswaram to sub-contractors on royalty of 1% of the gross bills. This claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the income of the sub-contractors was assessed in the hands of the appellants. In other words...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1993)45ITD233(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal of the assessee challenging the order dated 14-3-1988 of the Comm/bissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as erroneous which is liable to be quashed.2. The short facts of the case according to the assessee for the purpose of our determination of the relevant issues are briefly these.The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested. Its business is to produce, manufacture, refine, repair, import, export, purchase, sell and generally deal in all kinds of portland cement. On 31-8-1984, it filed its original return for the assessment year in question disclosing its total income at Rs. 42,42,890. A revised return disclosing NIL income after setting off the losses of the previous years was filed on 30-8-1985. Another revised return declaring nil income was filed on 27-6-1986. The assessment was completed on 31-3-1987 computing total income at Rs. 5,18,39,236 after effecting various additions. On appeal, the appellate officer allowed some grounds and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1992)42ITD242(Hyd.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1989-90 has been preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal raises the issue of computation of book profit under Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year under appeal.2. The appellant is a private limited company. The first year of the company is assessment year 1987-88. The figures of the net profit and loss as per profit and loss account are as follows:--Asst. DepreciationYear Profit/Loss debited to P&L A/c1987-88 (+) 3.087 --1988-89 (+) 35,79,997 67,75,759 (profit before depn.) The appellant-company had filed return of income disclosing 'nil income after setting off a part of arrears of depreciation against current year's profit of Rs. 28,37,947. The appellant took stand that for the accounting year relevant to assessment year under appeal, there was no book profit after adjustment of earlier year's loss against current year's profit.3. The Income-tax Officer, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1992)42ITD631(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad dated 28-10-1988 and it relates to assessment year 1985-86. Whether terminal allowance is correctly allowed or not for assessment year 1985-86, forms the subject-matter of the appeal.2. The assessee is public limited company, carrying on leasing and trading activities. For assessment year 1985-86, its previous year ended by 30-4-1984. The assessee filed a return disclosing a total income of Rs. 21,73,168 and after adjusting the carry forward loss arrived at 'Nil' income. As per the assessment order dated 16-6-1986, the terminal allowance under Section 32(1)(iii) in respect of plant and machinery sold, was taken by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 1,18,529.The said terminal allowance was arrived at as follows:--for the assessment year 1984-85 taken as 2,03,529the opening WDV for assessment year 1985-86sold during the previous year 85,000relevant to the A.Y. 1985-86 32(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1992)42ITD719(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee-firm against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) I, Hyderabad dated 29-10-1987 relating to assessment year 1984-85. Disallowance of depreciation claim and disallowance made under Section 43B are the two points which emerge for consideration in this appeal. The assessee is a registered firm. For assessment year 1984-85 it was granted continuation of registration. The firm was doing business in purchase and sales of kappas, ginned cotton and pressed cotton bales. Its Head Office is at Adoni in Andhra Pradesh and Branch Offices at Bellari and Raichur in Karnataka State. For assessment year 1984-85 it had filed its I.T. return disclosing an income of Rs. 1,55,000. The Income-tax Officer while making the assessment had disallowed 1 /2 of the motor car expenses and half the depreciation on motor car. Admittedly, the assessee was having one motor car bearing No. TNG-5139. One of the partners of the assessee-firm was stated to be h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1992)42ITD473(Hyd.)
1. These two appeals by the assessee for assessment years 1983-84 and 1985-86 have been filed against rectification orders of the revenue.2. The appellant is a Hindu undivided family deriving income from house property and interest. For assessment year 1983-84, the appellant filed a return of income which included notional income from self-occupied house. The computation submitted by the appellant and accepted by the Income-tax Officer was as under:Net rental income " " Rs. 55,003Annual Letting Value (Pertaining For assessment year 1985-86, the notional income from self-occupied portion of the property was computed in an identical manner and the final notional income from self-occupied portion at Rs. 4,860 was included in the total income of the appellant. It is essential to mention that this computation of property income from the self-occupied residential house was submitted by the appellant which was also accepted by the Revenue. The appellant, for the purpose of Section 23(2) of t...
Tag this Judgment!