ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS of INR 2,389. :- 9 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 23. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred by granting credit of advance tax of INR 28,30,00,000 as against the eligible advance tax credit of INR 35,66,82,429 available to the Appellant. thereby

RAMAKRISHNA INDUSTRIES ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of TDS. 4. Insofar as the interest on FDR is concerned, learned AR submitted that the only business of the assessee is generation and sale of power. And during the financial year relevant for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee placed certain surplus amounts in FDRs which yielded interest income

COSYN LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , TDS, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum.A.Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.64 & 65/Hyd/2019) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Cosyn Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Of Income Tax, Css Technergy Limited). Tds, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aabcc3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Praveen Nair For Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue By: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 Order Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’S Twin Miscellaneous Applications Filed U/S 254(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Seek To Recall Our Impugned Common Order 11.06.2021 Deleting Section 200A R.W.S. 234E Late Filing Fee; Involving Varying Sums, Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

227 (SC) as reiterated in CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) that section 254(2) proceedings do not tantamount to rehearing of the entire matter afresh as it is projected at the Revenue’s behest. 3. We find no merit in the assessee’s stand as it has already been made clear that our order

COSYN LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , TDS, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum.A.Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.64 & 65/Hyd/2019) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Cosyn Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Of Income Tax, Css Technergy Limited). Tds, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aabcc3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Praveen Nair For Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue By: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 Order Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’S Twin Miscellaneous Applications Filed U/S 254(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Seek To Recall Our Impugned Common Order 11.06.2021 Deleting Section 200A R.W.S. 234E Late Filing Fee; Involving Varying Sums, Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

227 (SC) as reiterated in CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) that section 254(2) proceedings do not tantamount to rehearing of the entire matter afresh as it is projected at the Revenue’s behest. 3. We find no merit in the assessee’s stand as it has already been made clear that our order

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

Section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 07.07.2009 declaring an income of Rs.2,01,42,190/-. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the appellant firm. Subsequently, Assessing Officer [completed the assessment

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

TDS at Rs.9,42,69,564 as against\nRs. 10,21,50,744\n7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred\nin the levy of the interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act\n8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or\nwithdraw any or all the above grounds

NADIMINTY GANAPATHY SASTRY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nadiminty Ganapathy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Sastry, Circle 14(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalpg5424F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Smt.T.H. Vijayalakshmi,Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. There Is A Delay Of 50 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons For Delay Along With An Affidavit. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit & After Hearing The Learned Dr, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

TDS reconciliation filed with the Assessing Officer and the statement of mutual funds filed before the Assessing Officer, copies of which are placed at pages 48 & 49 of the Paper Book, he submitted that the assessee has filed full details and the Assessing Officer after due verification has made certain disallowances and passed the order. Merely because the PCIT does

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

227 to observe that in that case it was held that the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The Assessing Officer in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. Hon'ble High Court in the above case deleted the addition by observing that the Tribunal

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

227 to observe that in that case it was held that the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The Assessing Officer in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. Hon'ble High Court in the above case deleted the addition by observing that the Tribunal

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nthe A

227 to observe that in that case it was held\nthat the onus was on the revenue to prove that the\nincome belongs to the assessee. The Assessing Officer\nin this case did not doubt the sales, stock record\nmaintained by the assessee. Hon'ble High Court in the\nabove case deleted the addition by observing that the\nTribunal

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

TDS credit as per law. The above ground is allowed to that extent accordingly. The Ground nos. 6 & 7 are consequential to the grounds adjudicated above, therefore needs no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445 has held as under: “The affidavit filed in support of the application for the condonation of delay disclosed that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a change of managing director. Though the chartered accountant of the company opined that it was a fit case for appeal and prepared

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445 has held as under: “The affidavit filed in support of the application for the condonation of delay disclosed that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a change of managing director. Though the chartered accountant of the company opined that it was a fit case for appeal and prepared

ACIT, CC-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. LEPL PROJECTS LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) for the A.Y 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under : “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in both in law and on the facts of the case in granting relief to the assessee. 2. In the facts and circumstances

GANGA VINAY BABU,HYDERABAD vs. SIBENDU MOHARANA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-14 Ganga Vinay Babu, C/O. Ch. Vs. Ito, International Taxation, Parthasarathy & Co., 1-1- Nellore. 298/2/B/3, 1St Floor, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Ayxpg 9593 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Balakrishna, (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit (It& Tp), Hyderabad Dated 26Th February, 2020 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 263 of the Act when an appeal proceedings are pending before first appellate authority.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by 291 days. The assessee has filed condonation application dated 5.8.2021, stating that the order u/s.263 of the Act was received by the assessee on 5.3.2020, thus, the time limit for filing appeal before the Appellate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAGNA HOMES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Magna Homes, Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Pan : Aapfg5917K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 148A(b) was issued to the appellant on 16.03.2022 and in response, the appellant has 3 ITA 327/Hyd/2024 not furnished any information. Order u/s. 148A(d) was passed with the prior approval of the specified authority. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 30.03.2022. However, the appellant has not filed any return