Rc/4/2003 Of M/S. Aldec Corporation v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

€: [.$lt-- ]i ['l] vb[ 3397 ]IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAIAT HYDERABAD"#i$THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERIi [jfsri ]i1TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREEPRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKAtiREFERRED CASE NO:4 OF 2003Between:M/s. Aldec Corporation, Hyderabad...Applicant i.: .,;AND',: iCommissioner of lncome Tax, A.P. - ll, Hyderabad....RespondentCase Referred lo the High Court by the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunalunder Section 256(1) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 in R.A.No.169/Hyd/1996 (lTANo.1O72lHl92) Assessment Year 1988-89 of l.T.A.T., Hyderabad Bench 'B'Hyderabad on its file for Decision on the following question of law viz;1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the amount of ,,{r .;tRs.1,82,926 being the difference between the cumulative sum of advances iiiri, . [--: ]+received from customers over the year and the cumulatlve net payments.HEi " made to the [job ]work firms, is a revenue receipt taxable in the assessment "''[4]year 1 988-89?2. Whether the Tribunal is iustified in holding that the return of Rs.4,60,050/the [job ]/work firms to the assessee is a revenue receipt?3. Whether the Tribunal is [justified ]in holding that the assessee had no liabilityto return the refund to the customers when the balance sheet showed theliability and full particulars of the customers and the amounts due havebeen furnished before them?"Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M Naga Deepak Representing SriCh Pushyam Kiran, AdvocateCounsel for the Respondent: Sri K Raji ReddyThe Court made the following: ORDER t..tffi'61,,i+ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEIMAPAI(AREFERR-ED CASE No.4 OF 2o,03 ORI)ER:(per Ho n'bte Si Justice P.SAM KOSHE) Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri M. Naga Deepak, learned counsel representingSri Ch. Pushyam Kiran, learned counsel appearing for theappellant submits that the petitioner does not want topursue this case any further. 2. Accordingly this Referred Case is disposed of as notpressed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly shall stand closed. SD/-B.S. CHIRANJEEVIJOINT //TRUE SECTION To, 1 . The Registrar' [lncome Tax Appellate ][Tribunal' Hyderabad ][Bench 'B']Hvderabad [(with records ][if ][anY)]z. it" i"".r"iiJion.i [oJ ][rn-'"1ax' ] [- ][ll' ][Hvderabad']3. The Deputy [corirsiontr ][oii;;; i'- ][1nss9l, ][.S^pl ][Ranse-2' ][Hvderabad]+. O"Lb-Ct"'Sri [Ch ][Pushyam ][Kiran' Advocate ] ]5. il; aa [to ][sri ][K Raji Reddv, ][Advocate ][[oPUC]]6. Two [CoPies]- , ,. i1.:i'n], ADKj :"r{. .. : iMY[w] t.ffi HIGH COURT DATED:21 11212023 1 €o{ I n'Pr [mt,]t"tir"rr [ri*?]|.j, ORDERRG.No.4 of 2003 DISPOSING OF THE REFERRED CASE ASNOT PRESSED WITHOUT GOSTS (crdaw,\ $.j i:t,41I1, ,:;li1..I ,,;li ,##:*{'1 [ii'lli'] +sii