THE COMMI.INCOME TAX HYD. vs. R.NARAYANA RAO AND OTHERS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court followed its previous judgment in a similar batch of appeals. It directed that the net profit be estimated at 2% of estimated sales or 16% of purchase value, whichever is higher.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Department filed an appeal against an ITAT order for assessment year 1993-94. The questions of law were similar to those in a previous batch of appeals.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the method of estimating net profit for the assessment year, specifically the percentage to be applied to sales or purchases.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.APPEAL No.84 OF 2002 JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah) The present appeal is filed by the Income Tax Department raising the questions of law relating to the assessment year 1993-94 aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A No.561/Hyd/1997, Visakhapatnam. 2) When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri S. Seshidhara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, would fairly submit that the questions involved in the present appeal are similar to the questions raised in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003 and batch in relation to assessment year 1993-94, wherein a Division Bench of this Court set aside the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directing that the net profit be estimated at 2% of the estimated sales or 16% of the purchase value whichever is higher. Copy of the common judgment in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003 and batch has been filed. Since the questions raised in the present appeal are squarely covered by the common judgment dated 21.06.2011 of a Division Bench of this Court in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003 and batch, following the common judgment in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003, this appeal is allowed answering the questions in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this
I.T.T.A. shall stand disposed of. 3) Let a copy of the common judgment in I.T.T.A.No.3 of 2003 and batch be tagged to the copy of this judgment. ______________________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J
____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Date:10.12.2013. Gk.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
I.T.T.APPEAL No.84 OF 2002
Date:10.12.2013. Gk.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026