EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

section 132 of the income tax Act 1961 / 37Aof the W. T.Act 1957 in the case of (A) above to search the place mentioned at (B) above and duly signed and sealed by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Hyderabad to Sri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka who was present in the said place at the time and who after reading

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132. The fresh claim so made was rejected by the AO and upheld by the ld.CIT(A). On further appeal, the Tribunal, following the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jaya Steel (supra) held that the assessment or reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of the Act is not a denovo assessment and therefore

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132. The fresh claim so made was rejected by the AO and upheld by the ld.CIT(A). On further appeal, the Tribunal, following the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jaya Steel (supra) held that the assessment or reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of the Act is not a denovo assessment and therefore

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

TDS in their assessments on the basis entries in Form No.26AS. The most relevant provision is Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that the Court may presume that Judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. No evidence was found to show that cash was returned by these entities to Appellant. Mere oral statements

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

TDS in their assessments on the basis entries in Form No.26AS. The most relevant provision is Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that the Court may presume that Judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. No evidence was found to show that cash was returned by these entities to Appellant. Mere oral statements

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

TDS in their assessments on the basis entries in Form No.26AS. The most relevant provision is Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that the Court may presume that Judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. No evidence was found to show that cash was returned by these entities to Appellant. Mere oral statements

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of— (i) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of— (i) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of— (i) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

132(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. During the course of search and seizure operations at various premises of the assessee, after analysis of seized materials total receipts as on the date of search was prepared and the total turnover was quantified at Rs.1144 crores for Skandhanshi Group pertaining to financial year 2017-2018 to till the date

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

1) of the Income \nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission \nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and \nnot subjected to TDS, which attracts disallowance \nu/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, \nconsidering the overall scenario including relevant books of \naccounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating \nmaterial found

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 132 of the income tax Act 1961 /\n37Aof the W. T.Act 1957 in the case of (A) above to search the place mentioned at (B) above\nand duly signed and sealed by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Hyderabad to Sri\nRamesh Kumar Sanaka who was present in the said place at the time and who after\nreading

SKANDHANSHI DEVELOPERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

132(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n6. During the course of search and seizure operations at various premises of the assessee, after analysis of seized materials total receipts as on the date of search was prepared and the total turnover was quantified at Rs.1144 crores for Skandhanshi Group pertaining to financial year 2017-2018 to till the date