NADELLA MUNIKANNAIAH ,TIRUPATI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 N.Dathri L/R Of Late Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) Nadella Muni Kannaiah Tirupati C/O. Katrapati & Andhra Pradesh Associates 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1St Floor Ashok Nagar,Street No.1 Hyderabad-500 020

2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is 7 ITA 444/Hyd/2019 the particulars of income which is the common subject matter of both the charges which will be discussed later. The word 'conceal' as per Webster's Dictionary means "to hide, withdraw, or remove from observation; cover or keep ,from sight; to keep secret; to avoid disclosing or divulging

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

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

256/-\ni.e. much more than the amount of capital gain. Reference was made to\nCircular No. 471 dated 15th October, 1986 [1986] 162 ITR (Stat.) 41. It\nwas observed that Section 54 of the Act says that assessee could have\nconstructed the house and not that the construction should have\nnecessarily been completed. Noticing that it was not easy

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

2)(a) of the Act. The relevant findings of the assessing officer are as under. “23. In the instant case the society has forfeited exemption in respect of the value of benefit conferred on the two companies M/s. Varsity Education Management Pvt Ltd and M/s. Junior Varsity Education Management Pvt Ltd as long term contracts of worth more than Rs.3000

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

Section 2(47)(v) and (vi). AO also relied on the following decisions: (i) Chaturbhuj Dwaraka Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) (Bom); (ii) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (Advance Ruling) (294 ITR 196); (iii) Dr.T.Achutha Rao Vs. ACIT (106 ITD 388) (Hyd); (iv) K.Jeelani Basha Vs. CIT (256 ITR 0282) (Mad-HC); :- 3 -: I.T.A. No. 1951/Hyd/2017 2.1. AO held that transfer

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

capital gains on sale of its property on purchase of both the flats, more so, when the flats are situated side by side and the builder has effected modification of the flats to make it as one unit, despite the fact that the flats were purchased by separate sale deeds. This decision was followed by the Karnataka High Court

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

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

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.

2(24)(xviii) is wrong and bad in law and to be deleted. 4. That the provisions of section 28(iv) are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the assessee case, as there is no benefit or perquisite arising to the assessee hence the addition made invoking Section 28(iv) is wrong

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

capital gains income which prompted the AO to reopen the assessment. In this regard, the learned AR submitted that the assessee has furnished the entire information before the AO during the original assessment proceedings and no new information was received by the AO. Referring to Page No.24 to 28 of the Paper Book, the AR submitted that the original sale

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

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

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 by the Ld.PCIT, to prove that because of erroneous order passed

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

POTLA NISHANTH, REP. BY GPA POTLA NAGESWARA RAO,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

gain in the hands of all the three assessees denying the claim of exemption U/s. 54F of the Act, which was further upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) for the erroneous computation of LCTG and denial of exemption U/s. 54F of the Act, all the three assessees are in appeal before

POTLA NAGESWARA RAO,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

gain in the hands of all the three assessees denying the claim of exemption U/s. 54F of the Act, which was further upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) for the erroneous computation of LCTG and denial of exemption U/s. 54F of the Act, all the three assessees are in appeal before

POTLA SHANTHI, REP. BY GPA POTLA NAGESWARA RAO,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

gain in the hands of all the three assessees denying the claim of exemption U/s. 54F of the Act, which was further upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) for the erroneous computation of LCTG and denial of exemption U/s. 54F of the Act, all the three assessees are in appeal before

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