G BHOOPATHI REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

256 ITR 0282) (Mad-HC); :- 3 -: I.T.A. No. 1951/Hyd/2017 2.1. AO held that transfer took place in the financial year relevant to AY. 2009-10 and worked out the capital gains as under: Rs. Value of development agreement 1,77,61,100 land owner’s share 88,80,450 Assessee’s share 50% 44,40,275 Less: Indexed cost

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

capital gain will arise nor any deeming charge under section 56 for the receipt of property / assets / shares etc. can be attributed for improper consideration. 22 ITA.No.1187/Hyd/2018 vii. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that since there is no doubt regarding the date of transfer and the year of taxability, just because the HC Order has been passed on October

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

256,99,63,642 Between the service provider trust and the companies. Amount of expenditure incurred by the trust on behalf of the Rs. 318,41,02,723 assessee. Now the issue to be examined is that out of the amount of Rs.256.99 Crores paid to the companies what the assessee would have paid had the contracts been awarded

SHRI RAMPRIYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

capital expenditure or personal expenses of/ the assessee), laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. Explanation - for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

1) of the Act has to be understood in a sense that the building should be of residential nature and "a" should not be understood to indicate a singular number and where an assessee had purchased two residential flats, he is entitled to exemption under section 54 in respect of capital gains on sale of its property on purchase

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

capital gain by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission of the assessee by the ld.AR that once the assessee had disclosed all the information to the Assessing Officer, then it is for the Assessing Officer to use his power under the Act for making the additions in the hands of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that the additions

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

capital gain by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission of the assessee by the ld.AR that once the assessee had disclosed all the information to the Assessing Officer, then it is for the Assessing Officer to use his power under the Act for making the additions in the hands of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that the additions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

256. 25 Cr as compared to Rs 128.59 Cr in F.Y: 2008-09. The funds for making the investments were clearly drawn from the loans taken from banks and financial institutions on which substantial interest is paid. 3. It is also submitted that during the year, the appellant incurred a long term capital loss of about

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

256. 25 Cr as compared to Rs 128.59 Cr in F.Y: 2008-09. The funds for making the investments were clearly drawn from the loans taken from banks and financial institutions on which substantial interest is paid. 3. It is also submitted that during the year, the appellant incurred a long term capital loss of about

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

256. 25 Cr as compared to Rs 128.59 Cr in F.Y: 2008-09. The funds for making the investments were clearly drawn from the loans taken from banks and financial institutions on which substantial interest is paid. 3. It is also submitted that during the year, the appellant incurred a long term capital loss of about

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

256. 25 Cr as compared to Rs 128.59 Cr in F.Y: 2008-09. The funds for making the investments were clearly drawn from the loans taken from banks and financial institutions on which substantial interest is paid. 3. It is also submitted that during the year, the appellant incurred a long term capital loss of about

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

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

Gain\n(LTCG). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that\nas Village: Manchirevula falls within Rajendranagar Revenue\nMandal, therefore, it could not have been taken as a part and\nparcel of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The Ld. AR submitted\nthat \"Rajendranagar” is also one of the Municipal Corporation.\nElaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". It is contended that the taxes paid are inherently in the nature of expenses incurred for the purposes

SHARE MICROFIN LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

gain on OTS is not taxable even though, in this case borrowings were utilized for working capital. 9.1 Referring to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of TINI PHARMA Ltd vide ITA Page 9 of 18 ITA 430 of 2020 Share Microfin Ltd No.669/Hyd/16, he submitted that in this case also the loan

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD vs. SHRILEKHA FINANCIAL SERVICES (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S SHRILEKHA BUSINESS CONSULTANCY), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Ward – 4(5) Pvt. Ltd., (Pan No.Aaycs0021L) Hyderabad (Formerly M/S. Shrilekha Financial Services Initially & Subsequently M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy, Both Are With Pan:Aacfs9088A 3-6-478, Iv Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. Aacfs9088A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

256 shares of M/s. SCL is a taxable receipt or non taxable receipt ( reference - ground no. 12 of grounds of appeal).” 7.1. With regard to treating the receipt of capital contribution from PEL by the assessee as income u/s.56 of the Act, the ld. DR also submitted that the assessee firm is not in the business of purchase and sale

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD vs. SHRILEKHA BUSINESS CONSULTANCY PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRILEKHA FINANCIAL SERVICES INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUEBTLY M/S SHRILEKHA BUSINESS CONSULTANCY ), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Ward – 4(5) Pvt. Ltd., (Pan No.Aaycs0021L) Hyderabad (Formerly M/S. Shrilekha Financial Services Initially & Subsequently M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy, Both Are With Pan:Aacfs9088A 3-6-478, Iv Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. Aacfs9088A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

256 shares of M/s. SCL is a taxable receipt or non taxable receipt ( reference - ground no. 12 of grounds of appeal).” 7.1. With regard to treating the receipt of capital contribution from PEL by the assessee as income u/s.56 of the Act, the ld. DR also submitted that the assessee firm is not in the business of purchase and sale

NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhassessment Year:2009-10

1 of 7 ITA No 384 of 2018 Nav Bharat Ventures Ltd 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in subjecting to assessment the capital gains of Rs.2,71,89,574/- in Asst. year 2009-10 stating that there is no dispute with regard to application of provisions of Sec.50C

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

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

capital and not used for business purpose, we find that sole basis for the PCIT to come to conclusion that the assessee has paid interest on loans and diverted interest-bearing funds to sister concerns for non-business purpose. We find that once gain the observation of the PCIT is devoid of merits. The assessee has discounted bills receivables with