SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS on payments made to sub-contractors in terms of Section 194C of the Act. Filing of return of income by the sub-contractors is not within the domain of the assessee and beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, non-furnishing of return of income by the sub-contractors is not a ground for disbelieving or doubting the genuineness

CYBERMATE INFOTEK LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Cybermate Infotek Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4776F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021

35D of the Income Tax Act. 1961 is accepted. We find that nowhere from the orders of revenue authorities that the earlier year expenditure has been disallowed. Once the deduction claimed by the assessee is accepted, in subsequent year it cannot be denied. This view is supported by the decision of ITAT CHENNAI BENCH 'B' in the case of Handy

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

section 143(3) r/w 153A on 31.03.2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, in both the orders, the Assessing Officer has not given any deduction claimed by the assessee. In the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 mentioned as under : “Search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were carried out in the case of M/.s. Madhucon

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

section 143(3) r/w 153A on 31.03.2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, in both the orders, the Assessing Officer has not given any deduction claimed by the assessee. In the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 mentioned as under : “Search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were carried out in the case of M/.s. Madhucon

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

section 143(3) r/w 153A on 31.03.2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, in both the orders, the Assessing Officer has not given any deduction claimed by the assessee. In the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 mentioned as under : “Search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were carried out in the case of M/.s. Madhucon

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD vs. QUARK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/S.Quark Enterprises 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10Th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032

TDS Receivable Rs.28,666) Liabilities = RS.13,68,80,511 (40,07,29,479 - 25,60,00.01 0- 7,48, 958) Paid up capital = RS.25,60,00,010 5 ITA 1270/Hyd/2019 Paid up value of equity share =Rs.10 Represented: FMV of unquoted equity share = (40,07,00,813-13,68,80,511)x10= Rs.10.305 25,60,00,010 Premium per share