DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

purchase of items such as vegetables, fruits, dairy, poultry, milk and other sundry expenses from the small vendors who do not have any bank account and hence could not be paid in cheques / through banking channel. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is not called for. 4. That the assessee company is running hotel business and the company is having

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

purchase of items such as vegetables, fruits, dairy, poultry, milk and other sundry expenses from the small vendors who do not have any bank account and hence could not be paid in cheques / through banking channel. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is not called for. 4. That the assessee company is running hotel business and the company is having

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

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

E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad dt.05.08.2022 wherein the assessing officer’s action in imposing penalty of Rs.34,12,411/- for A.Y. 2015-16 in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

13,58,87,500/- on hypothetical and notional basis without there being any material on record. 2.1 Erred in making the ALP adjustment u/ s. 92CA(3) of the Act for Rs. 4,79,143/- in respect of Corporate Guarantee without issuing any show cause notice and without allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.2 Erred

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

E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. These appeals are filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad dt.05.08.2022 wherein the assessing officer’s action in imposing penalty of Rs.35,83,457/- for A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs.71,63,856/- for A.Y. 2016-17 in proceedings u/s 271(1

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

E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. These appeals are filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad dt.05.08.2022 wherein the assessing officer’s action in imposing penalty of Rs.35,83,457/- for A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs.71,63,856/- for A.Y. 2016-17 in proceedings u/s 271(1

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

E R SRI LALIET KUMAR, JM : These appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010- 11 arise from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, dt.05.06.2019 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. Before us, at the outset, both parties submitted that

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

E R SRI LALIET KUMAR, JM : These appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010- 11 arise from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, dt.05.06.2019 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. Before us, at the outset, both parties submitted that

AMARAVATI,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

E R SRI LALIET KUMAR, JM : These appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010- 11 arise from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, dt.05.06.2019 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. Before us, at the outset, both parties submitted that

AMARAVATI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

E R SRI LALIET KUMAR, JM : These appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010- 11 arise from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, dt.05.06.2019 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. Before us, at the outset, both parties submitted that

BASANTH LAL SAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

1 and 2, or had reflected a substantially lower turnover in their Income-tax returns. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee in the year had made huge purchases from various agencies. On a perusal of the details, the A.O. 4 Basanth Lal Sah. observed that the assessee had, inter alia, made purchases

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

E R Per Bench : The captioned three appeals filed by different assessees are against the separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised by the respective assessees in both the appeals i.e. ITA No.119 and 120/Hyd/2022 are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

E R Per Bench : The captioned three appeals filed by different assessees are against the separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised by the respective assessees in both the appeals i.e. ITA No.119 and 120/Hyd/2022 are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

E R Per Bench : The captioned three appeals filed by different assessees are against the separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised by the respective assessees in both the appeals i.e. ITA No.119 and 120/Hyd/2022 are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

13,00,000/- and for A.Y. 2017-18 amounting to ₹39,35,200/-. 30. The facts with regard to the above issue are that, during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O., on analysis of mails of Shri P. Anil Kumar, noticed that a mail was sent by Shri Anil Kumar Perala from his email ID anil@prathimainfra.com to another email

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

13,00,000/- and for A.Y. 2017-18 amounting to ₹39,35,200/-. 30. The facts with regard to the above issue are that, during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O., on analysis of mails of Shri P. Anil Kumar, noticed that a mail was sent by Shri Anil Kumar Perala from his email ID anil@prathimainfra.com to another email

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

13,00,000/- and for A.Y. 2017-18 amounting to ₹39,35,200/-. 30. The facts with regard to the above issue are that, during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O., on analysis of mails of Shri P. Anil Kumar, noticed that a mail was sent by Shri Anil Kumar Perala from his email ID anil@prathimainfra.com to another email