Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian boilers amendment act 2007 section 24 amendment of section 27a Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat hyderabad Page 1 of about 1 results (0.501 seconds)

Dec 31 1986 (TRI)

Srinivasa Metal Works Vs. Income-tax Officer

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!

Jan 31 2006 (TRI)

Dy. Cit, 3(1) Vs. Sri K.S.N. Enterprises P. Ltd.,

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!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //