Allowed

The Commi.of Income-Tax Rajahmundry v. Y.Rama Krishna Murthy

Telangana HC10 Mar 2014ITTA/118/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-judge bench allowed Revenue appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside orders that estimated net profit at 1% of sale value. The court followed a prior High Court judgment holding 2% of estimated sales or 16% of purchase value (whichever was higher) as reasonable for arrack business given market variances.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders directing net profit estimate of 1% set aside; new estimate of 2% of estimated sales or 16% of purchase value substituted.

The Commi.of Income-Tax Rajahmundry Vs Y.Rama Krishna… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

ITTA Nos.106, 98, 105, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149 & 152 of 2002

¶4

Date: 10.03.2014

¶5

ITTA No.106 of 2002:

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

¶8

… Applicant

¶9

And:

¶10

B. Krishna Murthy & others, rep. by Mg.Pr. Sri L.Apparao

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶14

ITTA Nos.106, 98, 105, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149 & 152 of 2002

¶15

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)

¶16

All these appeals are filed under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) by the Revenue challenging the orders dated 18.12.2001, 31.01.2002 and 21.02.2002, on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 with an identical questions of law viz.,

¶17

(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the net profit shall be adopted at 1% of the total sale value?

¶18

(b) Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that net profit shall be adopted at 1% of the gross sale value is vitiated by perversity on the ground of the same not being based on any

¶19

material on record?

¶20

(c) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in interfering in an appeal against best judgment assessment and substituting its opinion for estimation even in the absence of findings recorded by the assessing authority being termed as arbitrary or perverse?

¶21

(d) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in uniformly applying the same rate in all cases, irrespective of other relevant factors such as place, climate, potentiality for sales etc.?

¶22

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue fairly states that in view of the judgment of this Court in ‘The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s R.Narayanarao & other s^[1] ’ , these appeals are also squarely covered. The operative

¶23

portion of the judgment reads as under:

¶24

“…..As seen from the purchase price and sales recoveries, there is a wide variation. In some cases, it is more than nine (9) times and in some other cases less than seven (7) times. Given the fact that there is no price fixed by the Government for sale of arrack and it is generally a seller’s market, to assume that the gross profit would be at 1% of the estimated sales, in our considered view, low. Accepting the total sale price at eight (8) times of the purchase price, we feel it appropriate to hold that 2% of the estimated sale value, after considering all types of deductions mentioned hereinabove, would be reasonable. Indeed, the Division Bench of this Court in A.Sanyasi Raju found that in some cases the profit margin was higher in arrack business. Therefore estimating the net profit at 2% of the estimated sales or 16% of the purchase price (the Tribunal estimated at 8% of the purchase price) would not be unreasonable.

¶25

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal impugned in these appeals directing that the net profit be estimated at 2% of the estimated sales or 16% of the purchase value whichever is higher. All the appeals shall stand disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.”

¶26

3. In view of the above referred judgment, result of these appeals

¶27

also should follow the same. Accordingly we set aside the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal impugned in these appeals directing that the net profit be estimated at 2% of the estimated sales or 16% of the purchase value whichever is higher.

¶28

4. All the appeals are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶29

_______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶30

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDARAM, J

¶31

Date: 10.03.2014 BSS

¶32

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND

¶33

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶34

¶35

ITTA Nos.106, 98, 105, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149 & 152 of 2002

¶36

(Per Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)

¶37

Date: 10.03.2014

¶38

BSS

¶39

[1] 338 ITR 625

The Commi.of Income-Tax Rajahmundry v. Y.Rama Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commi.of Income-Tax Rajahmundry v. Y.Rama Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Penchalaiah Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board

Mr. Y.U.Chander, Vs Union of India

M/s. Twin Cities Steel Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Income Tax Guntur Vs Chegu Krishna Murthy and Co. Guntur

The Commissioner of Incometax Ap Hyd Vs Kohinoor Hatchieries P Ltd. Hyd

Commissioner of Income Tax Hyd Vs Kohinoor Hateheries (P) Ltd. Hyd