Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
1. I.T.A Nos. 208/Hyd./2005, 818 and 819/Hyd./2003 are appeals which pertain to the Association of Persons, M/s K.K.House, Hyderabad, which comprises of six members who are involved in a joint venture of construction. I.T.A. No. 208/Hyd./2005 is filed by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) VI, Hyderabad, dated 10-12-2004. I.T.A. Nos. 818 and 819/Hyd./2003 are appeals filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, Camp at Hyderabad, dated 19-2-2003. I.T.A. Nos. 201, 203, 205, 209, 211 and 213 / Hyd./2005 are appeals filed by the members of the AOP in their individual status for the assessment year 1998-99.ITA Nos. 202, 204, 206, 210, 212 and 214/Hyd./2005 are appeals filed by the Members of the AOP in their individual status for assessment year 2001-02. As the issues involved in all these appeals are common, the appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Facts of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)103ITD438(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee, directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) III, Hyderabad, dated 22-2-2002, for asst year 1998-99. Brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of market research and consultancy. For the asst. year 1998-99, the assessee filed return of income declaring business income at Rs. 3.62 lakhs and taxable Income of Rs. 11.6 lakhs under Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. While arriving at the figure of Rs. 3.62 lakhs, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-O amounting to Rs. 19,18,836 and deduction under Section 80IA amounting to Rs. 9,77,533.The Assessing Officer did not allow the claim of deduction under Section 80IA and Section 80-O. On appeal, the first appellate authority concurred with the findings of the AO as far as denial of exemption under Section 80IA was concerned. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal on the following grounds: 1. The order of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)104ITD537(Hyd.)
1. This appeal tiled by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad dated 7-1-2005 for the assessment year 2001-02 on the following grounds: (1) Learned Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax is erroneous in law and on the facts of the case in rejecting the book results under Section 145 and estimating the profit at 12.5 per cent of gross receipts of the appellant. (2) Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have accepted income returned by the appellant as there is no case to prove that accounts of the appellant are not correct and complete in a situation where appellant is a limited company and got its accounts audited under the company law. (3) Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax is erroneous in not appreciating the accepted accounting practice of maintaining overhead accounts in the head office and registered office and maintaining direct expense accounts in various contract sites. (4) Learned Assistant Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)105ITD336(Hyd.)
1. This appeal, filed at the instance of the assessee-company,, is directed against the order dated 29-11-02 passed by the CIT(A), Guntur and it pertains to the assessment year 1995-96.2. The facts giving rise to the dispute are stated in brief. The assessee-company originally filed a return declaring loss of Rs. 15.94 lakhs and the assessment was completed on 27-3-98 under Section 143(3) of the Act wherein the AO disallowed the claim for write off of quarry development expenses. The case of the assessee is that it is engaged in the business of mining granite and obtained licence of 5 different places in Andhra Pradesh. In respect of one quarry at Khammam the production was effected in the year under consideration. The assessee had incurred quarry development expenses of Rs. 1.14 crores during the year on 5 quarries and claimed 1/5^th of the same i.e. Rs. 22.97 lakhs as deduction during the year by taking analogy from the provisions of Section 35E of Income-tax Act. In the order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)105ITD423(Hyd.)
1. These are cross appeals filed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad vide his order dated 29.11.2002 for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2002-2003.2. As the issues arising in all these appeals are common, for the sake of convenience, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.3. Brief facts of the case are given below. The assessee is a State Government undertaking, which came into existence with effect from 1.2.1999 after restructuring of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as APSEB). Japan Bank for International Co-operation, (hereinafter referred to as JBIC) which was formerly known as 'Overseas Economic Co-operation Fund' had signed a loan agreement with President of India on the 10^th February 1988. JBIC had agreed to lend the President of India 26101 Million Yens under the loan agreement for the purpose of implementing Srisailam Left Bank Project Power Statio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)105ITD81(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal of the assessee challenging the order dated 29-5-2003 of the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad, as errioneous.2. Facts of the case as gathered from the record are briefly these: Assessee is a retail dealer in toys. It filed return of income for the assessment year 2001-02 on 19-11-2001, declaring its total income at Rs. 22,170 under Section 44AF. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 61,696 after making an addition of Rs. 39,526, by way of partial disallowance of the assessee's claim relating to payment of remuneration to the partners.On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Hence, assessee is in second appeal before me.3. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that: The order of the Appellate Commissioner is untenable to the extent of upholding the disallowance out of remuneration to the partners in terms of Section 40(b)(v), when the assessee had in fact declared the income in accordan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
1. These appeals, two by assessees and two by the revenue, are directed against separate but identical orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) 1, Hyderabad, dated 23-6-2003 in the case of Vijay Raj Sethiya and dated 30-6-2003 in the case of Uttam Chand Sethiya, for block assessment period 1991-92 to 2001-02 and up to 23-11-2001. As the issues arising in these appeals are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a common order. Brief facts are as follows.2. The assessees were carrying on clandestine business in purchase and sale of N-Hexane, a solvent product used in pharmaceuticals. The modus operandi of this activity is that since there is no perceptible difference between Hexane products and Petroleum ether, the same was being sold to petroleum bunks for adulteration ie. mixing it with petrol. Taking advantage of the explosive licence and certification from Industries department as regards storage capacity which the assessee had, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2006)105TTJ(Hyd.)909
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 27th Sept., 1999 passed by the CIT(A)-V (Central), Hyderabad, and it pertains to asst. yr. 1997-98.2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds in the grounds of appeal, it would suffice to refer to the technical ground i.e. with regard to the legality of the prima facie adjustments made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, when the proceedings under Section 143(2) were set in motion.3. The case of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that in the light of the apex Court decision in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Electricity Board (2003) 181 CTR (SC) 28 : (2003) 260 ITR 84 (SC) intimation under Section 143(1)(a), shall be without prejudice to the proviso to Sub-section (2) thereof, and hence in a case where regular assessment proceedings were commenced simultaneous proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) are not warranted. In the instant case, intimation was processed on 24th Nov., 1998, and on the same date, the notice wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)106ITD151(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal tiled by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad dated 31.12.2004 for the assessment year 2002-03.2. The appellant has taken as many as 8 grounds in the grounds appeal.However, the basic grievance of the appellant is disallowance of exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-ax Act, 1961 in respect of income of Rs. 1,98,982/- derived from services rendered by the appellant co-operative bank to non-members.3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee co-operative bank derived income from non-members for rendering following services: The income received from the above services were in the form of commission on OBC, Commission on CDD, Commission on pay orders, commission on Demand Drafts, Commission on Daily Deposits and Miscellaneous income from non-members. The Assessing Officer, therefore, asked the appellant to show cause as to why income received from non-memb...
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!