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

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

133(6), as per which, loans upto Rs. 5 crores, the bank guarantee charges are 2.10% per annum, from Rs. 5 to 10 crores is 1.60% and above Rs. 10 crores the charges are 1.30% per annum. He, accordingly, computed the ALP of corporate guarantee fee as under: Amount of corporate guarantee extended

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

6. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, MA Nos. 21-29 of 2022 & MA No. 665 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 (SC). 16. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered relevant provisions

SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS,,KHAMMAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

133(6) issued to the creditors came back unserved\nand therefore the creditors were bogus. It is however found\nthat the AO has treated the purchase made during the year\nfrom the same very persons as genuine. The payment made to\nthem was also treated as genuine and disallowance was\nmade only by applying the provisions of section

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that the AO made an attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent’s unaccounted money, but he did not dig deeper. Notices issued under Sections 133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged

ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that the AO made an attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent’s unaccounted money, but he did not dig deeper. Notices issued under Sections 133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that the AO made an attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent’s unaccounted money, but he did not dig deeper. Notices issued under Sections 133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged