| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2392 2014 SLD 2392 (2014) 363 ITR 165 |
I.T.T.A. Nos. 31 OF 2007 & 60 OF 2010, FEBRUARY 6, 2014
KALYAN, JYOTI SENGUPTA, C.J. AND SANJAY KUMAR, J
J.V. Prasad for the Appellant. Ms. Mamata Chowdary and B. Nalin Kumar for the
Respondent
I.T.T.A. NOS. 31 OF 2007 & 60 OF 2010, FEBRUARY 6, 2014
Commissioner of INCOME TAX, HyderabadI
v.
Usha Kiran Movies Ltd.
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, CJ. AND SANJAY KUMAR, J
Law:
Section:
JUDGMENT Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. - I. T. T. A. No. 60 of 2010 : 2. This appeal was admitted for hearing without formulating a substantial question of law as required to be done under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view, we would have formulated such questions had we decided the matter in favour of the appellant. However, on perusal of the impugned judgment we noticed that even this case is not fit for admission and the reasons for the aforesaid conclusion of ours are as follows : The short facts of the case is that the assessee-respondent has filed a return for the assessment year 1995-96 showing nil income explaining that there has been no income after commencement of the business. The assessee started development of certain area for making it suitable for development of infrastructure for shooting locations. While doing so, there has been some rental income which was directly interlinked with the above activity. Explaining all these details, the return was filed and the Assessing Officer has accepted such return. Therefore, we quote the relevant portion of the order of the Assessing Officer : "For the relevant previous year, the assessee was engaged in developing the film project under the name and style of 'Ramoji Film City' at Anajpur, near Hyderabad. The business had not yet started. The assessee filed 'nil' return of income on November 30, 1995. Notice under section 143(2) was issued. The case was represented by Shri G. Sambasiva Rao, chartered accountant. After examining the details, the income returned is 'accepted'." 3. The Revenue did not prefer any appeal against this order. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax, in exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act had reversed the aforesaid order and directed that the aforesaid income would not have been capitalised and it should have been brought to tax under the head "Income from other sources". 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the revisional authority, an appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Tribunal on facts found that the income derived by the assessee herein was at the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492