ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

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

36,120/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that for the relevant year under consideration, the Respondent had claimed exempted income of Rs. 96,75,939/- as receipts from Long Term Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under 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

36,120/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that for the relevant year under consideration, the Respondent had claimed exempted income of Rs. 96,75,939/- as receipts from Long Term Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section

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

36,120/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that for the relevant year under consideration, the Respondent had claimed exempted income of Rs. 96,75,939/- as receipts from Long Term Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

vii) The Ld. CIT(A) was erred in holding that the share application money was to be taxed in the hands of shareholders for not proving their creditworthiness ignoring the amended provisions of section 68 w.e.f. 01-04-2013.” 3. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in C.O. reads as under : “The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

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

vii). Another glaring instance is that the Assessing Officer in his over enthusiasm to disallow the commission on sales, disallowed even the commission paid by the assesse to the customs clearance agent on the purchases made. S.No.16 page 2 of the asst. order is the payment of Rs.1,10,000 for Asst. Year 2011-12 to Sridhar clearing service

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

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

vii). Another glaring instance is that the Assessing Officer in his over enthusiasm to disallow the commission on sales, disallowed even the commission paid by the assesse to the customs clearance agent on the purchases made. S.No.16 page 2 of the asst. order is the payment of Rs.1,10,000 for Asst. Year 2011-12 to Sridhar clearing service

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

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

vii). Another glaring instance is that the Assessing Officer in his over enthusiasm to disallow the commission on sales, disallowed even the commission paid by the assesse to the customs clearance agent on the purchases made. S.No.16 page 2 of the asst. order is the payment of Rs.1,10,000 for Asst. Year 2011-12 to Sridhar clearing service

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

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

vii). Another glaring instance is that the Assessing Officer in his over enthusiasm to disallow the commission on sales, disallowed even the commission paid by the assesse to the customs clearance agent on the purchases made. S.No.16 page 2 of the asst. order is the payment of Rs.1,10,000 for Asst. Year 2011-12 to Sridhar clearing service

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

vii). Another glaring instance is that the Assessing Officer in his over enthusiasm to disallow the commission on sales, disallowed even the commission paid by the assessee to the customs clearance agent on the purchases made. S.No.16 page 2 of the asst. order is the payment of Rs.1,10,000 for Asst. Year 2011-12 to Sridhar clearing service

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

purchase of gold& then I have informed them to come to my office and they said that they want to purchase gold from me at that time. I did not have much stock of gold due to which I told that customers to place order by giving advance amount, accordingly those people have place booking by paying the amount

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

purchase of gold& then I have informed them to come to my office and they said that they want to purchase gold from me at that time. I did not have much stock of gold due to which I told that customers to place order by giving advance amount, accordingly those people have place booking by paying the amount