Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2008)304ITR251(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal of the Revenue challenging the order dt. 29th May, 2003 of the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad, as erroneous.2.1 Facts of the case as gathered from the record are briefly these : Assessee is a closely held company. It filed return of income for the asst. yr. 1994-95 on 29th Nov., 1994, declaring a net loss of Rs. 3,45,985. The said return was processed under Section 143(1)(a), vide intimation dt. 30th March, 1995. While doing so, the AO, by way of prima facie adjustment, disallowed in terms of Section 43B an amount of Rs. 31,29,350 being sales-tax debited to P&L a/c but not paid, and consequently levied, in relation thereto, additional tax of Rs. 3,59,875 under Section 143(1A) of the Act.2.2 Against the said intimation, assessee carried the matter in first appeal. It was the case of the assessee that as per the final eligibility certificate issued by the Addl. Director of Industries, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the sales-tax was deferred and should be repaid at the end of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 21-10-2004 for the assessment year 2001-02.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee-company engaged in research, production and marketing of hybrid seeds, filed its return of income declaring nil income under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred to as "the Act") and at an income of Rs. 42,30,543 under Section 115JB of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee, in the revised computation of total income has claimed exemption of part of its income as agriculture income Pis. 20,39,618under Section 10(1) of the Act, as under: 3. The assessing officer vide para 3 of the assessment order observed that the agricultural activities carried on by the assessee are as under: In the first stage the assessee purchases germplasm. Germplasm is a group of seeding which can regenerate itself with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Hyd.)1007
1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order dt. 9th Aug., 2004 (for asst. yr. 2001-02) of the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad and orders dt. 30th March, 2007 (for asst. yrs. 2002-03 and 2004-05) and order dt. 29th Sept., 2006 (for asst. yr. 2003-04) of the CIT(A)-IH, Hyderabad.2. The grounds raised in these appeals are based on identical set of facts and therefore, for the sake of convenience all the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of knowing the exact grounds of appeal, grounds of appeal raised in ITA No. 1084/Hyd/2004 for asst. yr. 2001-02 are reproduced below: (1) The CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case in allowing the exemption under Section 10B when your appellant had submitted that the unit is eligible for exemption under Section 10A and also that the claim in the returns of income was wrong. (2) The CIT(A) should have considered the notice of not claiming the exemption user Section 10A/10B submitted during the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
1. These appeals filed by the assessees are directed against separate orders dated 27th June 2003 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04.2. Grounds raised in these appeals are common based on identical facts.Therefore, both appeals are decided by this common order for the sake of convenience. To know the exact grounds of appeal, we reproduce the following grounds of appeal raised in I.T.A. No. 1080/HYd/2003 for assessment year 2002-03: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the ase, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in partly dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, passed under Section 201(1) and Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2) The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the facts and the circumstances of the ase ought to have held that there was no business connection in India, and that IGTL had not earned any income taxable in India, making it mandatory for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Hyd.)680
1. These are cross-appeals by the Revenue and assessee. These are directed against the order dt. 18th Oct., 2005 of the CIT(A)-I, Hyderabad for the block period from 1997-98 to 2002-03 and upto 21st Jan., 2003. The cross-objection has been filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 3/Hyd/2006.2. The concise grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are reproduced as below: (1) The order of the learned AO passed for the block period is opposed to law and is against the facts, circumstances and probabilities of the case. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 84,07,790 in the facts and circumstances of the case. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) are in violation of the principles of natural justice and also bad in law, because they have estimated the turnover for three earlier years of the block period i.e. from the asst. yr. 2000-01, when the seized material related to 57 days only from 26th Nov., 2002 to 21st Jan., 2003. (3) The CIT(A) and the AO are not justified...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Hyd.)170
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of the learned CIT(A) dt. 8th March, 2002 and 22nd March, 2002 for asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively. For the sake of convenience, the two appeals are disposed of together by this combined order. The appeal for asst. yr. 1997-98 is taken up first for consideration. The only ground raised in this appeal is against the disallowance of Rs. 1,06,43,227. The assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of various packaging systems catering to the requirements of various industrial units and other traders in India. It has entered into a manufacturing license agreement with Signode Corporation, USA. It had declared a total income of Rs. 60,44,800 for the year under consideration. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 1,06,43,227 as market development and analysis group expenses in the computation of income. In the books of account this exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
1. These two appeals are filed by the department against the combined order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) both dated 1-6-2005, for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. As common issues are involved in these appeals, they are being disposed of together, by this combined order.2. The first common ground is against the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') is weak in nature and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.3. The assessee is a society registered under the Public Societies Registration Act, and is assessed as an Association of Persons (AoP).The main object of the Society is to establish aid and administer educational and other institutions to impart education at all stages in all subjects including medicine, engineering, etc. for diffusion of knowledge. One of the projects undertaken by the society was to establish medical college at Khammam.For want of approval, the Society could ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2008)111ITD124(Hyd.)
1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 21.9.2005 for assessment year 2002-03.2. The first issue relates to the computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961(the Act). The assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of detonators, industrial explosives and its accessories. It returned total loss of Rs. 34,27,39,176 for the year under consideration. Since the provisions of S.115JB were attracted, the assessee worked out the book profits at Rs. 9,89,95,042. While computing this book profits, it started with the figure of net profit of Rs. 9,78,55,461, which was the profit before taxation, as shown in the Profit & Loss Account. This profit was arrived at after crediting Rs. 3.06-lakhs as write offs/provision and after charging Rs. l09.96-lakhs as additional advisory fee for sale of investments. These two items were classified as extraordinary items in the Profit & Loss Account. The profit before extraor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Hyd.)574
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) I, Hyderabad, dt. 22nd Aug., 2005, and pertains to the block period 1997-98 to 2002-03 and upto 21st Jan., 2003.2. The first issue that arises for consideration is regarding addition of Rs. 60,98,200 as undisclosed income for the block period. Shri Syed Jameeluddin, learned representative for the assessee, submitted that there was a search in the residential premises of the assessee and other members of his family on 21st Jan., 2003. During the course of search, the Revenue authorities found a paper, identified as P-95, from the residence of Shri Gyan Kumar Agarwal, son of the assessee.According to the learned representative, the assessee purchased landed property at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, and intended to construct a commercial complex. The assessee entrusted the construction to M/s S.A.Builders and the construction was also started on the abovesaid property. Subsequently, the construction could not be comple...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2008)111ITD1(Hyd.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order dated 7.1.2005 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad, as erroneous.2.1 Facts of the case in brief are THAT: The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of industrial gases.While framing the assessment for the assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee claimed interest expenditure of Rs. 2,04,230 representing interest on Interest-free Sales Tax.Loan. The Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned an amount of Rs. 90.50- lakhs as loan to the assessee to be repaid, Since the loan amount was not paid, penal interest was charged as per proceedings No. 20/A11/87 dated 19.3.2001. The Assessing Officer held that the loan granted is with reference to sales tax payable and the repayment of loan partakes the character of sales tax. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee defaulted in repayment of loan and the interest is charged for non-payment of sales tax within the t...
Tag this Judgment!