MAGNAQUEST TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

438 of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,40,23,520/- being the old outstanding Service tax payments 3 ITA.Nos.736 & 743/Hyd./2025 made by the appellant during the AY 2018-19 using the internet banking facility by opining that as the Service tax payment challans submitted by the appellant did not contain the stamp and signature of Bank

MAGNAQUEST TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

438 of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,40,23,520/- being the old outstanding Service tax payments 3 ITA.Nos.736 & 743/Hyd./2025 made by the appellant during the AY 2018-19 using the internet banking facility by opining that as the Service tax payment challans submitted by the appellant did not contain the stamp and signature of Bank

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

438\n2018-19\n9,79,67,978\n6,83,45,676\n2019-20\n3,78,69,796\n2,64,19,212\n2020-21\n5,95,94,164\n4,15,74,845\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n2023

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMRUT PRASAD PATNAM , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

438 13,93,26,562 T O T A L 122,99,85,000 94,53,04,460 28,46,80,540 28. From the above, he noted that the assessee Shri P.Amruth Prasad has benefited by Rs.1,62,09,305/- and M/s. Amsri Builders by Rs.26,84,71,235/- on account of cessation of liability by Smith Group

SRINIVAS UPPU,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

438 13,93,26,562 T O T A L 122,99,85,000 94,53,04,460 28,46,80,540 28. From the above, he noted that the assessee Shri P.Amruth Prasad has benefited by Rs.1,62,09,305/- and M/s. Amsri Builders by Rs.26,84,71,235/- on account of cessation of liability by Smith Group

P AMRUTHA PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

438 13,93,26,562 T O T A L 122,99,85,000 94,53,04,460 28,46,80,540 28. From the above, he noted that the assessee Shri P.Amruth Prasad has benefited by Rs.1,62,09,305/- and M/s. Amsri Builders by Rs.26,84,71,235/- on account of cessation of liability by Smith Group

P AMRUTH PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

438 13,93,26,562 T O T A L 122,99,85,000 94,53,04,460 28,46,80,540 28. From the above, he noted that the assessee Shri P.Amruth Prasad has benefited by Rs.1,62,09,305/- and M/s. Amsri Builders by Rs.26,84,71,235/- on account of cessation of liability by Smith Group

SRINIVAS UPPU ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

438 13,93,26,562 T O T A L 122,99,85,000 94,53,04,460 28,46,80,540 28. From the above, he noted that the assessee Shri P.Amruth Prasad has benefited by Rs.1,62,09,305/- and M/s. Amsri Builders by Rs.26,84,71,235/- on account of cessation of liability by Smith Group

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Section 148 is bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -. 9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material

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

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

Section 148 is bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -. 9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

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

section 14A are not applicable. 6.10. Without prejudice to the above, erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.10,68,463/ - instead of restricting the disallowance to the extent of income claimed/ earned as exempt during the year. Additional Grounds of Appeal Without prejudice to the grounds no. 1 to 8 filed on 30.01.2018, herewith we submit: Each of the grounds

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account.\nIn support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(3, HYDERABAD vs. MYTRAH WIND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Mytrah Wind Developers Private Limited, Ward – 16(3), Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaicm1274H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2023

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 210 days. It has moved a condonation application explaining the reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone