CIT Vs. G.K. Properties Private Limited (Andhra Pradesh HC) Merely because the assessee made a claim which was not acceptable ipso-facto cannot be said to have made a wrong claim by furnishing inaccurate particulars attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
Pr. CIT Vs. M/s G.K. Properties Private Limited (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The case of the appellant-Department, in brief, is that the assessee had purchased agricultural lands with a clear intention to trade in buying and selling of agricultural lands
CIT Vs. S. Vijaya Kumar (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Individual items of centering and shuttering material used collectively in construction process constitute ‘Plant’ in terms of first proviso to section 32 (1), even if they can’t be used on stand alone basis.
CCECE Vs. M/s. Surana Telecom Limited (High Court of Andhra Pradesh) Rule 57L of the Rules which says that no credit of money on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products shall be allowed if the final products are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon
Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. ACIT In this case the writ petition was filed by the Assessee in which the AP High Court while dismissing the writ petition held that whenever an order is made under the re-assessment
While discussing the Revisional powers of CIT(A) u/s 263 it was held that the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, i) the order is erroneous; and ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
CIT Vs. Shri Varanasi Khanta Rao (Andhra Pradesh High Court) When once the Commissioner has got power to point out the errors which had the effect on the revenue, the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority on the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act.
Sri Damodarlal Badruka Vs. ITO (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is well settled that once an assessment is re-opened by virtue of the order passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act, the initial order of assessment ceases to be operative.
High Court held that Business is a continuous activity which is done year to year. Here, in this case the Assessee let out his godown and shown income as Income from Business instead of Income from property to which the High court do not agree
CIT Vs. M/s. Sileman Khan Mahaboob Khan (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Merely because one of the objectives, in the partnership deed, was to let out the godowns would not mean that the assessee had undertaken the activity of construction of godowns and letting them out as business activity.
