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

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

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

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

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

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee company. 48. Ostensibly, the AO had disallowed the claim for deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee company, on the ground that CSR expenditure is mandatory and hence donations made therefrom cannot be regarded as voluntary. 49. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals

AGARWAL SPONGE & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.59/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Agarwal Sponge & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Energy (P) Ltd., Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca8680P (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Is Filed By Agarwal Sponge & Energy (P) Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 31.08.2017 For A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: "1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Dated 31/8/2017 Is Contrary To Law & Facts.

purchase and sale of raw materials from abroad in order to protect itself from future price fluctuations because market for procurement of raw material was seasonal as well as volatile, loss incurred by assessee on aforesaid contracts was not speculative in nature rather same was to be allowed as business loss." However in the case of the assessee the item

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Section 14A cannot be\nmechanically made by invoking Rule 8D in a routine or automatic\nmanner, we are of the view that, though the CIT(Appeals) has\nproceeded on an incorrect factual premise regarding absence of exempt\nincome, but the disallowance under section 14A is even otherwise not\nsustainable on the ground that the AO has failed to record

FARMAX INDIA LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Farmax India Limited Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(3) 4Th Floor, Alluri Trade Centre I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards Bhagayanagar Colony Masab Tank Opp.Kphb Colony Hyderabad Kukatpally Hyderabad-500 072

133(6) nor were produced by the assessee before the AO. Even in the case of the remaining three investors, the AO had given the reasons for not accepting the creditworthiness of the said persons after recording the outcome of their examination. We find during the remand proceeding, the assessee had given the list of the 13 shareholders with their