MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Gvpr Engineers Limited, Hyderabad

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2013-14 Gvpr Engineers Limited, The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. M. Anandam & Co., Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Circle 2(2), 7A, Surya Towers, Hyderabad. S.P. Road, Secunderabad – 500003. Pan : Aaacg7614F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gvpr Engineers Limited, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. M. Anandam & Co., Of Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Circle 2(2), 7A, Surya Towers, Hyderabad. S.P. Road, Secunderabad – 500003. Pan : Aaacg7614F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Gvpr Engineers Limited, Of Income Tax, C/O. M. Anandam & Co., Circle 2(2), Chartered Accountants, Hyderabad. 7A, Surya Towers, S.P. Road, Secunderabad – 500003. Pan : Aaacg7614F (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross Appellant) Ita Nos.1576 & 1577/Hyd/2017 Gpvr Engineers Limited Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Gvpr Engineers Limited, Of Income Tax, C/O. M. Anandam & Co., Circle 2(2), Chartered Accountants, Hyderabad. 7A, Surya Towers, S.P. Road, Secunderabad – 500003. Pan : Aaacg7614F (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By: Smt. D. Komali Krishna Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Two Revenue & Assessee’S Cross Appeals I.E., Ita Nos.1576 & 1617/Hyd/2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 & Ita No.1577 & 1618/Hyd/2017 For A.Y. 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Hyderabad’S Separate Orders Dt.30.06.2017 & 29.06.2017, Passed In Case Nos.0075 & 0436/2016-17, Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act’s provisions as per honourable apex court’s recent constitutional bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee’s first argument is rejected therefore.…

DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. M.R.V. Prasad, Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

…. It is also made clear that the very addition formed part of the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed earlier as well. We therefore quote the foregoing statutory proviso by adopting stricter construction as per Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC) as well as Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) that such re-opening reasons have to be read as recorded only without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein at a latter stage. We accordingly hold that the CIT(A) has rightly quashed the impugned re-opening as per his detailed discussion. 5.1. We furth…

Secunderabad Club, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-10(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Secunderabad Club, Hyderabad. Pan Aaaat2534E …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.16.02.2018 Passed In Case No.0051/2016-17/B2/Cit(A)-6 In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

…well nor u/s. 2(24)(vii) defining “income” in the very account, section 71 of the Act would not apply in isolation. We further deem it proper to refer to hon'ble apex court’s recent larger bench decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) that provisions of a taxing statutes have to be strictly construed only. We next quote CIT Vs. Hariprasad and Co. P. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) that a loss arising from a head of income not chargeable to tax is not eligible to be set off against a taxable source as follows : 5 “ It may be remembered that the concept of carry forward of loss do…

Murtuza Ali Khan Mohammed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -9(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

…Ravindran (2013) 352 ITR 488 (Mad) holds that foregoing amendment carries prospective effect only. We thus adopt strict interpretation as per hon’ble apex court recent and constitutional effect decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) and hold that the legislative expression “or assessable” used in 1st proviso has to be read in conjunction with the corresponding employed in section 50C(1) of the Act rather than having any independent exigibility. We accordingly reverse the learned CIT(A)’s directions in issue and accept the assessee's instant sole substantive ground in the le…

Mohd Mukhtar Ali Khan, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -9(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

…Ravindran (2013) 352 ITR 488 (Mad) holds that foregoing amendment carries prospective effect only. We thus adopt strict interpretation as per hon’ble apex court recent and constitutional effect decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) and hold that the legislative expression “or assessable” used in 1st proviso has to be read in conjunction with the corresponding employed in section 50C(1) of the Act rather than having any independent exigibility. We accordingly reverse the learned CIT(A)’s directions in issue and accept the assessee's instant sole substantive ground in the le…

Fatima Khatoon, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -9(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

…Ravindran (2013) 352 ITR 488 (Mad) holds that foregoing amendment carries prospective effect only. We thus adopt strict interpretation as per hon’ble apex court recent and constitutional effect decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) and hold that the legislative expression “or assessable” used in 1st proviso has to be read in conjunction with the corresponding employed in section 50C(1) of the Act rather than having any independent exigibility. We accordingly reverse the learned CIT(A)’s directions in issue and accept the assessee's instant sole substantive ground in the le…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Syed Rafiuddin, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Sl.

…e wish to make it clear that we are dealing with a “search” wherein the corresponding statutory provisions have to be given stricter interpretation only in light only in light of hon'ble apex court decision Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB). We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)’s action under challenge holding the impugned 143(3) r.w.s. 153C assessment as lacking proper satisfaction. Ordered accordingly. 6.5. These Revenue’s four appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th Oct…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Indrani Prasad, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. Smt. Indrani Prasad, New Delhi. Pan Aanpi 5216K …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Yvst Sai. (D.R.) Respondent By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao. Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2009-10 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.28.02.2020 Passed In Case No.10397/2019-20 In Proceedings Under Section 154 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

…ish to make it clear that we are dealing with a “search” wherein the corresponding statutory provisions have to be given stricter interpretation only in light only in light of hon'ble apex court decision Commissioner of Customs Vs. 6 Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB). We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)’s action under challenge holding the impugned 143(3) r.w.s. 153C assessment as lacking proper satisfaction. Ordered accordingly. 6.5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th Oct., 2021. (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderab…

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

…ter-X is a “Special Provision” wherein there is no scope for any kind of “grace marketing” and more particularly when other segmental companies are already there. We further quote hon'ble apex court’s decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC) that provisions of the Act have to be strictly interpreted only. The assessee fails in its instant ground No.4(v). This ground No.4 (with all sub-grounds) is partly accepted in foregoing terms. 6. We now advert to the assessee’s 5th substantive ground involving sub-ground Nos.(i) to (vi) seeking to exclude the allegedly improperly selected c…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

…icates that the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner concerned in case of the Assessing Officer having ranked below him, is indeed a mandatory condition only. We wish to emphasise there that the hon'ble apex court’s Full Bench decision in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) has settled the law that the provisions of a taxing statute have to be interpreted in stricter manner only. We C.O. No.59/Hyd/2015 therefore adopt the very analogy herein as well to hold that the impugned reopening is non-est in the eyes of law. All other pleadings on merits are rendered infructuous. 5. To sum up, Revenue’s appeal 887/Hyd…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

…all these project(s). He argued that we ought to adopt strict interpretation while dealing with the deduction provision in the instant taxing statute as per the hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision CCE (Import) vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 (S.C)(FB) 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival pleadings. We are of the opinion that neither party’s submissions regarding the impugned issue of sec 80IB(10) Page 26 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. deduction claim(s) therein, as the case may be, deserve to be accepted in entirety. So far a…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

…all these project(s). He argued that we ought to adopt strict interpretation while dealing with the deduction provision in the instant taxing statute as per the hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision CCE (Import) vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 (S.C)(FB) 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival pleadings. We are of the opinion that neither party’s submissions regarding the impugned issue of sec 80IB(10) Page 26 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. deduction claim(s) therein, as the case may be, deserve to be accepted in entirety. So far a…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

…all these project(s). He argued that we ought to adopt strict interpretation while dealing with the deduction provision in the instant taxing statute as per the hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision CCE (Import) vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 (S.C)(FB) 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival pleadings. We are of the opinion that neither party’s submissions regarding the impugned issue of sec 80IB(10) Page 26 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. deduction claim(s) therein, as the case may be, deserve to be accepted in entirety. So far a…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

…, wherein it is held as under: “10.2. As regards the principles of interpretation, the learned senior counsel for revenue has strongly relied upon the Constitution Bench decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co. and Ors: (2018) 9 SCC 1 to submit that it is now settled beyond doubt that taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, leaving no room for any intendment; and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in favour of the revenue, as exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on the un…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

…, wherein it is held as under: “10.2. As regards the principles of interpretation, the learned senior counsel for revenue has strongly relied upon the Constitution Bench decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co. and Ors: (2018) 9 SCC 1 to submit that it is now settled beyond doubt that taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, leaving no room for any intendment; and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in favour of the revenue, as exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on the un…

Late Laxmanji Dandotikar Rep. by L/R Bajrang Dandotikar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Shri Bajrang Dandotikar, L/R Of Late Laxmanji Dandotikar, 13-3-748/A/2, L.N. Nagar, Jiaguda, Hyderabad. Pan Aazpd 4198H …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri S. Rama Rao. Respondent By : Shri Rohit Majumdar. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2009-10 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.10.11.2017 Passed In Case No.0362/Ito-7(2)/Hyd/Cit(A)-3/2016-17 In Proceedings

…is title over the capital asset in issue. All these facts sufficiently indicate that both the learned lower authorities' have rightly invoked section 50C capital gain going by stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) since the impugned statutory provision nowhere contains any mitigating 4 circumstances except those provided by the legislature itself. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that we are only dealing with sale agreement cum GPA who has not seen any transfer of the capital asset till date. This last argument also fails to evoke our concurrence si…

Venkatesh Granites Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

…n sub-section (1)(i) herein above. We therefore find no merit in the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance going by the principles of stricter interpretation as per hon'ble apex court’s recent landmark judgment in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC). We thus adopt the very principle mutatis mutandis to reject Revenue’s instant sole grievance as well as the earlier appeal ITA No.1250/Hyd/2018. 5. Next comes the Revenue’s and assessee’s cross appeals ITA Nos.1251/Hyd/2018 and 1278/Hyd/2018 dealing with Section 271AAB penalty issue. Suffice to say, it transpires at the outset that the Asse…