OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

u/s 263 of the Act on different opinion unless\nthe view taken by the A.O. is unsustainable in law. The relevant\nobservations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under :\n“The AO had passed the assessment order accepting the case of the\nassessee that its income has to be taxed under the head \"Capital gain

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

revision u/s 263 of the IT Act is to be held as unwarranted. 11. The learned Pr.CIT ought to have appreciated that the assessee paid the tax u/s 115QA on buy back of its shares numbering 6615000 for a consideration of Rs.20,48,00,000/- and the issue is accepted after verifying the transaction therefore, the learned CIT erred

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

gains from business and profession'. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade', certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

HARISH KUMAR MURALIDHAR HARWANI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-3(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Harish Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Muralidhar Harwani, Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aayph0485N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Of The Learned Pr.Cit -1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act By The Pcit-I.

gains and Rs.19,90,573/- from other sources. He noted that the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the “low income from TCS receipts-liquor”. However, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and accepted the returned income of Rs.6,43,040/-. 5. The learned PCIT observed that the assessee

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.536/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Cambridge Technology Vs. Dcit Enterprises Limited Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacu3358G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Services, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2012-13 On 26.09.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.4,05,55,380/- Under Normal Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Rs.1,47,09173/-

capital in nature, the Assessing Officer has not examined the issue, even though the assessee has debited into Profit & Loss account. Further, the assessee has deducted prior paid income credited to Profit & Loss account, while computing the income. Similarly, the assessee has reduced notional gain on foreign exchange, while computing the income, even though the gain on foreign exchange

BHAGWANRAM CHIMNARAMJI PRAJAPAT ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent – if the order of the ITO is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue- recourse cannot be had to section 263(1). There can be no doubt

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s 263 of the Act. 2. The Hon'ble Pr. CIT erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal

UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED (UNIQUE RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS PVT LTD NOW MERGED WITH UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS PVT LTD ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-1 CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. United Rail Road Vs. Dy. C.I.T Consultants (P) Ltd., Central Circle 1(3) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacu8136E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A Appeared For Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.3.2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit (Central)- Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Providing Consultancy Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 29.9.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,29,74,860/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass In The Limited Scrutiny To Verify “Large Other Expenses Claimed In The Profit & Loss A/C & Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report &

revised was selected under limited scrutiny, thereby the order passed u/s 263 is not as per law. 14. The appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal”. Page

SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

u/s 263 of the Act. In our considered view, the explanation 2 to section 263 has given power to the PCIT to revise the assessment order, if the PCIT satisfies that the order is passed without making enquiries or verification, which should have been made, but such conclusion can be drawn only on the basis of reasons given

PRIYANKA BAHETI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.444/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Priyanka Baheti Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan: Amspb86983E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Siddharth Toshnival राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/Order

revision order dated 29/02/2024 passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 12 ITA No 444 of 2024 Priyanka Baheti Page 2 of 12 ITA No 444 of 2024 Priyanka Baheti Page

SLV ROYAL ESTATE,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

revision u/s.263 of the Act by Ld.PCIT due to the reason as mentioned in para No.3 of his order dated 30.03.2023 which is to the following effect : “ 3. Nevertheless, on examination of records, it is seen that the assessment was completed without carrying out necessary and relevant enquiries with regard to the following:- (a) The Capital Account or the capital

NADIMINTY GANAPATHY SASTRY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nadiminty Ganapathy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Sastry, Circle 14(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalpg5424F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Smt.T.H. Vijayalakshmi,Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. There Is A Delay Of 50 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons For Delay Along With An Affidavit. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit & After Hearing The Learned Dr, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

gain. He therefore, issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T. Act asking the assessee to explain as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer should not be cancelled. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee, the learned PCIT set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/147 with a direction

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

revised return, it can still be raised, if relevant material is available on record before the appellate authorities, i.e., CIT(A) and the Tribunal by themselves; or on remand by the AO is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for\nboth the

Capital gain\".\nTherefore, in our considered view, once the income from\ninvestments is taxable including dividend income and\ncapital gain, then, disallowance of expenses relatable to said\ninvestments under section 14A read with Rule 8D does not\narise for the assessment year 2021-2022. Although, the\nassessee has brought all these facts to the notice of the\nlearned PCIT

GAUTAM CHAND JAIN (HUF),SECUNDERABAD. vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 6(1), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Gautam Chand Jain(Huf) Vs. Deputy Commissioner Secunderabad Of Income Tax Pan : Aabhg7699J Circle-6(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 08/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

revision order dated 20.02.2025 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [“Ld.PCIT”], Hyderabad, passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the A.Y.2020-21. 2 Gautam Chand Jain (HUF) 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Hon'ble PCIT is not correct either on facts

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

capitalized nor considered for any revenue expenditure. otherwise. enclosed." Therefore, there is no impact as to the income or A separate statement indicating the position of such advances is 7.3 From the above, it is clear that the assessee is not coming forward with the facts and simply furnished an evasive reply. 7.4 As mentioned above, Sri B. Ramalinga Raju

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

capitalized nor considered for any revenue expenditure. otherwise. enclosed." Therefore, there is no impact as to the income or A separate statement indicating the position of such advances is 7.3 From the above, it is clear that the assessee is not coming forward with the facts and simply furnished an evasive reply. 7.4 As mentioned above, Sri B. Ramalinga Raju

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

capital gain of Rs 24,66,759/- and income from other\nsources of Rs 8,29,85,866/- aggregating to Rs 15,96, 77,696/- which was claimed and\nallowed as deduction u/s 80IA. The deduction u/s 80IA should be claimed against eligible\nbusiness income of Rs 7,42,25,071/- only and the claim of deduction against short term