LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

249(4)(a), ignoring the fact that the assessee had not paid the tax due on the income returned by it.\n2. Alternatively and without prejudice to ground no.1, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.3,89,56,740/-.\n3. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring CBDT's Circular No.5 of 2014 dated

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 :

249,590/- and addition of Rs.5,14,80,879/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) had held at pages 58 to 65 as under : The facts of the case are that 11 companies amalgamated with the appellant vide the order of High Court dated 10.10.2013 w.e.f 01.04.2011. The amalgamating companies had identical shareholders and shareholding

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income Tax, PAN:AAACR8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR Date of hearing: 15/11/2022 Date of pronouncement: 28/11/2022

KREATIVE HOSTS ATRIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kreative Hosts Atria Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P. Murali & Co., C,A, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aadck 2362 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , Ar Revenue By : Shri T.Sunil Goutham (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11/10/ 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(A)-2, Hyderabad Dated 28.5.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 .

B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , AR Revenue by : Shri T.Sunil Goutham (DR) Date of Hearing : 11/10/ 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(A)-2, Hyderabad dated 28.5.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14 . 2. The only

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

TDS related to the disputed Assessment Year while computing the demand amount and upheld the impugned Tax demand of Rs 6,80,57,929 8. The learned CIT(A) erred by not appreciating the evidence provided during the process of filing Appeal. 3 Pinki Fresh Foods Limited. 9. For the above reasons, and for any additional reasons that

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

249 as against the eligible TDS credit of INR 3,08,07,638 available to the Appellant, thereby resulting in short grant of credit of 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

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,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

249 as against the eligible TDS credit of INR 3,08,07,638 available to the Appellant, thereby resulting in short grant of credit of 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

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

B +D)\n12,74,11,754/-(F)\nPercentage of Overall Profit\n9.40% (F/(E))%\nPercentage of Net profit as per return filed u/s.139(1)\n8.00% (B/A)%\nPercentage of additional income admitted to the additional\nturnover\n10.47% (D/C)%\n\n8. 4. The assessee is not in a position to substantiate its claim of expenses\nby producing supporting vouchers and other documentary

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

B +D)\n\n12,74,11,754/-(F)\n\nPercentage of Overall Profit\n\n9.40%(F/(E)%\n\nPercentage of Net profit as per return filed u/s.139(1)\n\n8.00%(B/A)%\n\nPercentage of additional income admitted to the additional\nturnover\n\n10.47%(D/C)%\n\n8. 4. The assessee is not in a position to substantiate its claim of expenses

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

B and C of the Act. 3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground in its appeal stating that” “The Ld. CIT (A)-8, Hyderabad has erred both in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal U/s. 249(3) of the Act.” 4. Since, this is a legal ground raised by the assessee

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

B and C of the Act. 3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground in its appeal stating that” “The Ld. CIT (A)-8, Hyderabad has erred both in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal U/s. 249(3) of the Act.” 4. Since, this is a legal ground raised by the assessee