INDUKURI SYAM PRASAD REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

capital gains. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when the issue was originally examined by the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer opined that it is not allowable and when the Addl. Commissioner u/s 144A directed the Assessing Officer to consider the claim, after examining the facts and circumstances and also material on record, the learned CIT is totally

AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED., SEC'BAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

gains in the case of the assessee and not in the case of the comparables while computing their PLI. He therefore, held the assessment order to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee also argued before the CIT that one of the comparable i.e. Tasty Bites Limited should

V.RAJASEKHAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [Pan No. Aadpr0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent

gains arising on this transaction. But the assessee officer with out verifying the veracity of conversion of capital asset into stock in trade completed the assessment”. 4. On the basis of the comparison of the two show cause notices it was submitted that it is not open for the PCIT to exercise jurisdiction in respect of the same subject matter

AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.791/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Amara Raja Energy & Mobility Limited, The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. Tirupati – 517 520. Tirupati Pan Aabca9264E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca E Phalguna Kumar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

capital gains. Additionally, the fair valuation gain on investment in mutual funds amounting to Rs.2,23,24,579/- 13 ITA.No.791/Hyd./2025 and profit from sale of assets amounting to Rs.9,05,785/- which had been subtracted from the net profit from business were also not admitted as income under any other head of income." 3. The above mentioned aspect

KYORI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kyori Infrastructure Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P Murali & Co., Ca, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Samajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Bala Krishna Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.263 Of The Act Of The Pr. Cit-2, Hyderabad Dated 26.2.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Infrastructure Activity. It Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 30.9.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 27.12.2017 With The Assessed Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. P A G E 1 | 11 Assessment Year : 2015-16

revision under both legal grounds and factual grounds. The Pr. CIT observed that the Assessing Officer has never called for or examined the issues i.e. chargeability of capital gains as per section 45(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass fresh assessment order after taking into account

NARASIMHA REDDY PEECHU, NIZAMABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

capital gains should have brought to tax in this year based on the interpretation of law, is another opinion which cannot be substituted with that of the AO in the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. It is trite law that CIT cannot exercise the jurisdiction u/s. 263, once AO raises queries and enquires about the issue

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI vs. T RAMA SUBBA REDDY , ADONI

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Capital Gain on the sum of Rs.4.67 cr. This order was also not challenged. Thus, order u/s 263 attained finality. 6.4 The CIT has given a finding that the assessee has received a sum of Rs.4.67 cr and not Rs.21.75 lacs as admitted and assessed by the AO. The amounts paid to third party on account of the assessee

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

YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

revised u/s 263 of the Act. He submitted that even otherwise, the capital loss arising out of sale of shares is only to the extent of the shares which were converted into stock-in-trade at book value and not the shares which were acquired subsequent to such conversion of shares which have all along been treated as stock

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

ROCKSALT INTERACTIVE GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under subsection (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub-section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed

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

KALPANA ALEXANDER ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-6(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charydr.Kalpana Alexander, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, [Pan No. Achpa5433A] Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

revision u/s. 263 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that neither the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act calls for any information on this aspect, nor does the assessment order refer to any enquiries or material giving rise to the subjective satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer on this aspect. There is nothing to contradict the opinion

N JAIDEEP REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

revised. In response to the same, the assessee company filed a detailed reply objecting the initiation of proceedings u/s. 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 3.2 During the proceedings before the PCIT, the assessee submitted that the valuation of share is correct and there is no infirmity in the valuation and therefore, invoking the provisions of section 263