Itta/540/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Universal Realtors Private Limited
High Court
06 Aug 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/540/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Universal Realtors Private Limited
Date of order
06 Aug 2014
Assessment year(s)
2008-09
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/540/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Universal Realtors Private Limited, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No. 540 of 2014
Date: 06.08.2014
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-III,Hyderabad.
… Appellant
And
M/s. Universal Realtors Private Limited,Secunderabad.
… Respondent
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No. 540 of 2014
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against thejudgment and order dated 20.01.2014 of the learned Tribunal in relation tothe assessment year 2008-09 on the following suggested question oflaw:
In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in allowing the respondent-assessee’s claim of calculation of estimated costs on the basis ofpercentage of work completion based on supplementary agreement,when the said supplementary agreement is an act of afterthought toincrease the project cost and when no work is executed based on thesaid supplementary agreement?
While examining the aforesaid question and hearing Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant, it appears to usthat the learned Tribunal has correctly pointed out the question thatwhether the Assessing Officer is right in rejecting the accounting methodregularly employed by the assessee and substituting the same with theaccounting method as per AS-7 and computing the profit based on it.
On fact, the learned Tribunal found that the accounting methodapplied by the assessee is not only regularly followed but also acceptedby the Assessing Officer subsequently. In these circumstances, we donot find any wrong in the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal toentertain this appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Date: 06.08.2014ES
___________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
___________________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.