Hyderabad: A division bench comprising Justices Ramesh Ranganathan and M. Satyanarayana Murthy on Saturday admitted a batch of petitions moved by companies owned by family members of B. Ramalinga Raju, founder of the Satyam Computer Services Ltd, challenging an order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Konar Greenlands Private Ltd, Medravathi Agro Farms Private Ltd, Nagavali Greenlands Private Ltd and 10 other companies of Mr Raju’s family contended that assessing tax and imposing penalties on an incomplete transaction and upholding the decision of the assessment officer in imposing the penalty by an appellate tribunal were not lawful.
Counsel P. Subhash said that the companies had entered into an agreement with Maytas infra Ltd in 2005 to develop Maytas Hill County at Bachupally. They had submitted advance tax returns of Rs 11.73 crore for the assessment year 2008-09.
After the arrest of Mr Raju, all the agreements were cancelled and the ISLFS Group took over Maytas, He told the court that when the petitioners moved the appellate tribunal, it quashed the assessment notice and directed the assessment officer to file fresh assessment, besides justifying the Rs 7-crore fine on the companies.
Counsel argued that the tribunal had erred in justifying the fine when the assessment on an incomplete transaction itself was “bad in law”. While admitting the petitions, the Bench issued a notice to the income-tax department seeking its stand on the issue.
Court stalls recruitment of 1,000 farm officers:
The Hyderabad High Court has directed the state government not to go-ahead with the final selection of more than 1000 agricultural extension officers. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice P. Naveen Rao was dealing a petition by Mr E. Suresh and others challenging the refusal of AP Administrative Tribunal to stay the process.
TS counsel Sharath Kumar said the government was firm on handing over the recruitment process to the public service commission, and was not willing to accord any concession to contract employees. While adjourning the case, the bench assured the counsel that it would soon take up the case.
