The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Ganapati Ingots Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0130-113]

Citation 2015-LL-0130-113
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad
Respondent Name Ganapati Ingots Pvt. Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/01/2015
Assessment Year 2005-06
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags substantial question of law • evidence on record • material on record • closing stock • total cost


THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 744 of 2014 DATED:30.01.2015 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. Appellant And M/s. Ganapati Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. .Respondent HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 744 of 2014 Judgment: (per Hon ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted by Revenue against judgment and order of learned Tribunal dated 10.8.2012 in relation to assessment year 2005-06 on following suggested questions of law: (A) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that once finished flats are handed over by Developer to Assessee there was further need for Assessee to incur huge expenditure on extra works and also there is no evidence of such expenditure ? (B) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that land held for road widening is to be valued and value needs to be excluded from total cost of land for purpose of closing stock, in spite of there being no evidence on record to show same ? (C) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, finding of Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that assessee has shown profit of Rs.15,96,405/- on account of extra works whereas in reality, loss of Rs.6,83,595/- is shown by assessee ? (D) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that value of unsold flat should not be taken into closing stock despite fact that assessee handed over possession of entire land to Developer and also received constructed area of 4550 sq.ft., which includes unsold flat ? (E) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, finding of Appellate Tribunal on various issues can be said to be based on material on record ? We have heard Mr.S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for Revenue and have gone through impugned judgment and order of learned Tribunal. It appears, learned Tribunal as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after appreciating fact held that amount of income offered for taxation was reasonable and justified. We do not think that we should substitute our own appreciation, which is not simply permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, we do not find any element of law, much less any substantial question of law to admit appeal. appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed. No order as to costs. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 30th January, 2015 Pnb Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Ganapati Ingots Pvt. Ltd
Report Error