In Itta/473/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. M/S. Meghadoot Drillers, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: In I.T.T.A.No.295 of 2011, a similar issue came up forconsideration of this Court, namely, whether the digging of borewellamounts to civil construction activity.
Decision: Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. ______________________ 31[st] January, 2012.Ak/Pnb ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURAND
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.Nos.470 and 473 of 2011
Date: 31-01-2012
Between
The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV,Hyderabad
… Petitioner
and
M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,Nagarkurnool, (PO)Mahabubnagar
… Respondent
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDHON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.Nos.470 and 473 of 2011
Order: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur)
The substantial question of law raised by the Revenue in theseappeals is whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that theprovisions of Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘theAct’) are not applicable to the assessee.
2. The assessee was carrying on the activity of digging ofborewells.
3. In I.T.T.A.No.295 of 2011, a similar issue came up forconsideration of this Court, namely, whether the digging of borewellamounts to civil construction activity.
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue very frankly says that inthat case, the issue was held against the Revenue and in favour of theassessee and this Court came to the conclusion that the digging ofborewells does not amount to civil construction activity within themeaning of Section 44AD of the Act.
5. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises forconsideration in these appeals.
6. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
______________________
31[st] January, 2012.Ak/Pnb
___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.