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

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

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

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

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

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

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