TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 2072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Commissioner of Income tax (A) 1 are erroneous: Privilege fees Rs. 271,62,84,789 SpI. privilege fees for sports promotion Rs. 25,00,00,000 Additional privilege fees Rs. 429,23,75,131 Leave encashment disallowance Rs. 8,42,385 PF, SF, GF & other fund disallowance 15,36,759 Rs. Rs. 703,60,39,064 4. The appellant contends that during the financial year 2013-14 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15, the entire wholesale trade in liquor was carried on by the State of Andhra Pradesh and not by the appellant corporation. The Ld. A.O. and the CIT(A) erred in assuming that the wholesale trade was carried on by the appellant corporation and thereby disallowing the privilege fees by applying the provisions of section 40(a)(iib) of the IT Act which are put on the statue book effective from the assessment year 2014-15. 5. The appellant contends that it did not carry on any wholesale trade in liquor. The appellant did not pay any privilege fees to the State Government in relation to the wholesale trade carried on by the State Government. 6. It is contended that the Ld DCIT as well as the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad. 11. The appellant submits that the appellate order contains numerous errors on the factual aspects and also from the language point of view sometime altering the meaning. It is contended that the letter dt 03.04.2018 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) for rectification of the appellate order and also for correction of errors may be treated as a part of the present appeal. 12. It is contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the petitions filed under Rule 46A of the IT Rules dt 23.10.2017 and 10.11.2017 for admission of additional evidence. 13. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the remand report of the DCIT and Addl CIT dt 24.11.2017 while passing the appellate order. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in omitting all the submissions made in writing before her and filed on 23.10.2017, 3.11.2017, 10.11.2017, 21.10.2017, 29.11.2017, 8.12.2017 and 18.12.2017 while confirming the assessment order. 15. The appellate order is erroneous as it suffers from non-application of mind and omission to refer to the relevant submissions which are material for the purpose of deciding the issue while disposing of the appeal. 16. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in favour of PD account, which belongs to the Treasury of the State Government and therefore, such sale proceeds do not belong to the assessee at any particular point of time. It was submitted that for the work executed by the assessee, it receives only commission and income in the form of ground rent / penalty and its expenditure has to be met from such ground rent and penalties alone. It was also submitted that the privilege fees, special privilege fee etc., are paid by the retailers directly to the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, not by the assessee and therefore, the assessee is not covered by the provisions of section 40(a)(iib) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer, however did not accept the assessee's contentions. He observed that the main and ancillary objects of the assessee make it clear, that the assessee is a purely business venture for carrying on the activity of manufacture, purchase, import and export of alcohol and other beverages as sellers, dealers and distributors either in bulk or in retail. He also observed that assessee-company itself is admitting part of the receipts viz., retail outlet sales, cash discounts received from suppliers, penalty levi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the authorities below submitted that the assessee was initially carrying the business of procuring the liquor from the manufacturers and supply of the same to the retailers, but from the relevant assessment year 2003-04, the State Government has taken over the business and the assessee is not trading in liquor any more, except as a retailer. He submitted that in support of the assessee's contention, the assessee has filed copies of the letters from the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Special Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and the affidavit of the Managing Director, APBCL, copy of the PD Account of the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Bank account of APBCL for the financial year 2013-14, certificate of remittances made from the PD account of the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise etc., before the CIT(A) in support of the contention that it is the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is doing the business and not the assessee. He submitted that the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the A.O. In the remand report, Assessing Officer has stated that all the material was part of the assessment proceedings, therefore, needs....