Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)20ITD768(Hyd.)
1. These two appeals are against the consolidated order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') setting aside the assessments made by the ITO under Section 147 of the Act and directing him to redo the same afresh. The prejudice caused to the revenue was on account of the omission of the ITO to consider whether two businesses done under the names of Pillai Enterprises and Sagar Enterprises were the concerns of the assessee or not. We are asked to decide in substance one question of law, that is, (7) whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise assessment order admittedly made under Section 147 and (2) a question of fact whether there were materials report that two businesses really belong to the assessee.2. The original assessments for these two years had a chequered history. The assessment for the year 1971-72 was made on 11-11-1971.The income declared by the assessee-firm was accepted as correct.However, this assessment was reopened under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : 195629ITR206(Hyd.)
MOHD. AHMED ANSARI, J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Bombay on application by the assessee under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, referring the following questions of law, viz. : (1) Whether the amendment to paragraph 2 of the Taxation Laws (Part B States) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1950, purporting to have been made under section 60A of the Indian Income-tax Act is valid in law (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmation, whether the Central Government had the power to pass an order with retrospective effect The assessee who owned during the relevant year of account certain rice mills and a cotton ginning and pressing factory, the assets of which were acquired about 40 years earlier, claimed depreciation allowance for the assessment year 1950-51 under section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act on the basis of the actual cost of the assets acquired 40 years earlier. Prior to the assessment year 1950-51 ...
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)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)106ITD350(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, challenging the order dated 27.7.2003 of the CIT(A), as erroneous.2.1 Facts of the case in brief are THAT: In connection with scrutiny assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 1997-98 onwards, summons under Section 131 of the Act were issued to the Managing Partners, Smt. S. Laxmi and Shri K. Ramulu. Sworn statements of the above two persons were also recorded on 3.8.1999 and 12.8.1999. While recording the sworn statements, details of the partners of the firm during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1998-99 and also on the date of recording the statements, have been ascertained. The said sworn statements revealed that as on 3^rd August, 1999, there were only three partners, viz. Smt.S. Laxmi with 75% share, her husband Shri K. Ramuloo with 5% and S.Mata with 20% share; that S. Mata was not a living person, but Goddess Santoshi Matha; and that her share of profit would be utilized for spiritual p...
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 : (2007)108ITD639(Delhi)
1. These appeals arise out of block assessment orders passed under Section 143(3), read with Section 158BC(c), of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The facts of the case are as follows.2. Valueline Securities (India) Ltd. is a company engaged in hire-purchase,leasing, purchase and sale of shares and other related activities. Shri Y.Ravi Prasad and Shri B.K. Gupta are Director and Managing Directorrespectively, of the said company. In the case of these assessees, actionunder Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was initiated on 24-1-1996and was concluded on 23-4-1996. Search was conducted at the registeredoffice of the company and the residential premises of the two directors named above. During the course of search, Shri B.P. Gupta offered Rs. 50,00,000 under Section 132(4) in the hands of the company and itsdirectors. Later, Shri Y. Ravi Prasad and others retracted the admission by filing a letter dated 21-3-1996. However, before conclusion of the search, four affidavits dated 4-4-1996 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)105ITD375(Hyd.)
1. All these appeals are filed by the Revenue, directed against the separate but identical orders of the CIT (Appeals) I, Visakhapatnam, camp Hyderabad, and relate to assessment year 1993-99. As the issues arising in all these appeals are common, for the sake of convenience, at the request of both the parties, the appeals are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The CIT (A) ought not to have held that the provisions of Section 28(ii) are not applicable to consideration received on termination of contracts. 3. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the restrictive covenant is a ruse adopted by the assessee to reduce the incidence of taxation. 4. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that in the assessee company line of business goodwill does not exist.3. The assessee was engaged in the business of distribution of soft drinks like Coca Cola, Thums Up, Limca, Maaza etc., which were produced by Spectra Bottling Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2004)90ITD344(Hyd.)
1. These are three appeals in all, for the assessment year 1991-92. Two of them are filed by the assessee, and the third one, viz. ITA No.253/Hyd/95 is filed by the Revenue. Of the two appeals filed by it, the assessee did not press the appeal, ITA No. 460/Hyd/95. The same is accordingly dismissed. In effect, we are left with two appeals, viz.ITA No. 99/Hyd/95 by the assessee and ITA 253/Hyd/95 by the Revenue, which are cross-appeals, directed against the order of the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad dated 24.5.94.2. The assessee company has two manufacturing units -one for fertilizers and the other for cement. Initially, the Company was incorporated on 16.10.61 for manufacture and sale of fertilizers. It set up a cement unit in 1984. The said cement unit was sold as per an agreement executed on 9.6.1990 between the assessee company and a Madras based company, the India Cements Limited, for a consideration of Rs. 105,69,54,104 and this consideration comprised of Rs. 105.30-crores for fixed assets ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1995)54ITD612(Hyd.)
Per S. Kannan, Accountant Member - These two appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the department, were heard together and are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. There is one issue that is common to both the appeals and that is centered on the admissibility of revenue deduction in respect of the provision made by the assessee in relation to the incremental sum which the assessee was obligated to pay owing to the upward revision of the High Tension (HT for short) power tariff effected by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB for short) on two consecutive occasions.We propose to deal first with this common issue.3. The assessee-company manufactures and markets cotton and synthetic yarn. The assessee was carrying on the manufacturing operations in two factories - one at Kakinada and the other at Vizianagaram. It was drawing its HT power requirements from the APSEB. It is a matter of record that for the said purpose it had entered into agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!