CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Further, if you go by the scope of the project work, as defined in the BID document, it is a huge irrigation project for drawing 88.24 TMC water from Mid Manair Reservoir in 120 days with a static head 50 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV of about 88 mtrs lift in single stage at Anantagiri

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, MADHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 80IA of the Act by observing that with the purpose of boosting the country's infrastructure specially the transport infrastructure, Finance Act, 1995 which came into effect April 01, 1996 brought an amendment to the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the views taken in the case

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

CONCENTRIX CATALYST TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), HYDERABAD

section 153 of the Act which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the assessment proceedings are time barred and liable to be quashed. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS 3. erred in making a transfer pricing ("TP") adjustment of INR 3,41,54,276 in relation to notional interest on overdue inter-company receivables and payment

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

120/-. The same was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and resultant refund of Rs.1,33,08,189/- was made on 09.10.2007. 2.1 The assessee, thereafter, filed a revised return of income on 06.12.2010 admitting taxable income of Rs. 9,67,39,768/-, which was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

120/-. The same was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and resultant refund of Rs.1,33,08,189/- was made on 09.10.2007. 2.1 The assessee, thereafter, filed a revised return of income on 06.12.2010 admitting taxable income of Rs. 9,67,39,768/-, which was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

120/-. The same was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and resultant refund of Rs.1,33,08,189/- was made on 09.10.2007. 2.1 The assessee, thereafter, filed a revised return of income on 06.12.2010 admitting taxable income of Rs. 9,67,39,768/-, which was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings

SONALI VERMA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(6), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.778/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Smt. Sonali Verma Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12 (6) Pan:Amnpv3410A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sk Chaturvedi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order

120/-. The assessee was under the bonafide impression that her income was not taxable in India as the same has already been taxed in USA and therefore, the said income was not declared in the return of income and has also not claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC). Subsequently, the assessee filed her revised return of income

DAICEL CHIRAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Daicel Chiral Vs. 1. Deputy Technologies India Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle Medchal, 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. 2. National Faceless Pan : Aaccd8423B. Assessment Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Pradeep Revenue By: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

b) The rest is on account of mis attributing income against our account for which the assessee has not claimed the TDS in the Return for the A.Y.2017-18 11,17,000/- 3 These are invoices which were raised and offered to tax in the A.Y. 2018-19 by the assessee. However, the customers had made accrual entries

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless