CIT v. Omer Khayyam Wineries (P.) Ltd.

120 ITR 859High Court1979#14755 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Omer Khayyam Wineries (P.) Ltd.

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…bmitted that the pre-operative expenses is capital expenditure in nature and ITA 183/Hyd/2020 therefore, the same cannot be allowed as deduction. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i. CIT v. Omer Khayyam Wineries (P.) Ltd. [1979] 120 ITR 859 (AP.HC) ii.Eimco K.C.P.Ltd. vs CIT [2000] 109 taxman 151(SC) (SC) iii. CIT vs. Mohan Steel Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 479 (Alahabad HC) iv.MAC Industrial Products Ltd. ACIT,CC [2006] 101 ITD 191 (ITAT, Chennai) v.CIT vs. Reinz Talbros (P.) Ltd. [2001] 119 taxman 739 (Del.HC) 19. He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) being in accordanc…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…bmitted that the pre-operative expenses is capital expenditure in nature and ITA 183/Hyd/2020 therefore, the same cannot be allowed as deduction. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i. CIT v. Omer Khayyam Wineries (P.) Ltd. [1979] 120 ITR 859 (AP.HC) ii.Eimco K.C.P.Ltd. vs CIT [2000] 109 taxman 151(SC) (SC) iii. CIT vs. Mohan Steel Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 479 (Alahabad HC) iv.MAC Industrial Products Ltd. ACIT,CC [2006] 101 ITD 191 (ITAT, Chennai) v.CIT vs. Reinz Talbros (P.) Ltd. [2001] 119 taxman 739 (Del.HC) 19. He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) being in accordanc…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…ted that the pre-operative expenses is capital expenditure in nature and 11 ITA 183/Hyd/2020 therefore, the same cannot be allowed as deduction. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i. CIT v. Omer Khayyam Wineries (P.) Ltd. [1979] 120 ITR 859 (AP.HC) ii.Eimco K.C.P.Ltd. vs CIT [2000] 109 taxman 151(SC) (SC) iii. CIT vs. Mohan Steel Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 479 (Alahabad HC) iv.MAC Industrial Products Ltd. ACIT,CC [2006] 101 ITD 191 (ITAT, Chennai) v.CIT vs. Reinz Talbros (P.) Ltd. [2001] 119 taxman 739 (Del.HC) 19. He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) being in accordan…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Wind Power Sankonahatti Athni Private Limied, Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 34/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…is supplied) 30. Further, the distinction between set up and commencement was also explained by Ld. CIT Dr in his arguments. We agree with the same. The following case law relied also support the Revenue stand. i. CIT Vs. Omer Khayyam Wineries (P) Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 859 (AP High Court) ii. K. Sampath Kumar Vs. CIT (1986) 1581TR 25 (Madras High Court) iii. CIT Vs. Industrial Solvents and chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 119ITR 608 (Bombay HC) iv. CIT Vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 770 (AP High Court) v. CWT Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 478 (SC) vi Travencor – Cochin Chemicals Pvt Ltd…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Wind Energy Halagali Benchi Private Limied, Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 33/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…is supplied) 30. Further, the distinction between set up and commencement was also explained by Ld. CIT Dr in his arguments. We agree with the same. The following case law relied also support the Revenue stand. i. CIT Vs. Omer Khayyam Wineries (P) Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 859 (AP High Court) ii. K. Sampath Kumar Vs. CIT (1986) 1581TR 25 (Madras High Court) iii. CIT Vs. Industrial Solvents and chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 119ITR 608 (Bombay HC) iv. CIT Vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 770 (AP High Court) v. CWT Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 478 (SC) vi Travencor – Cochin Chemicals Pvt Ltd…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. L & T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1412/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…is supplied) 30. Further, the distinction between set up and commencement was also explained by Ld. CIT Dr in his arguments. We agree with the same. The following case law relied also support the Revenue stand. i. CIT Vs. Omer Khayyam Wineries (P) Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 859 (AP High Court) ii. K. Sampath Kumar Vs. CIT (1986) 1581TR 25 (Madras High Court) iii. CIT Vs. Industrial Solvents and chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 119ITR 608 (Bombay HC) iv. CIT Vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 770 (AP High Court) v. CWT Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 478 (SC) vi Travencor – Cochin Chemicals Pvt Ltd…

CIT v. Omer Khayyam Wineries (P.) Ltd. (120 ITR 859) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax