NETMATRIX CROP CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O., vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 12.09.2022, assessed the income of the assessee company at Rs. 75,19,06,190/-, i.e. as was originally returned. 3. The Pr. CIT, after the culmination of the assessment called for the assessment record of the assessee company

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

gains must be computed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. In this case, we are concerned with Section 28. Therefore, Section 145(1) is attracted to the facts of the present case. Under the mercantile system of accounting, what is due is brought into credit before it is actually received; it brings into debit

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

263 of the Act by proposing the addition towards capital gains is not correct in the case of assessee company.” 6. Reiterating the written submission, ld A.R. submitted that section 45(2) of the Act cannot be applicable because each acre land sold at capital loss of Rs.30,05,828.24 and the assessee cannot claim the capital loss

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

1),Hyderabad on 28.01.2015. In this statement, when the assessee was asked why capital gains was not offered on the above transaction, it was replied to question No.8 as under: "No, we have not declared any capital gains on the transfer of the land vide the development agreement as we were not aware of the tax liability." If the assessee

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

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

Section 263 and, by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) held as under:\n\n9. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The provisions of Sec.263

P.ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),TIRUPATI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 54F 26,11,406 Capital Gains liable for tax 40,26,784 Investment in residential building (4147 49,76,400 @ 1200 per sq.ft) Proportionate Exemption 26,11,406 4976400/12650000*6638190 2. The assessee has received 20 flats from the builder. As per the information collected from the builder by the AO, the cost of construction of constructed area received

P.ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),TIRUPATHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 54F 26,11,406 Capital Gains liable for tax 40,26,784 Investment in residential building (4147 49,76,400 @ 1200 per sq.ft) Proportionate Exemption 26,11,406 4976400/12650000*6638190 2. The assessee has received 20 flats from the builder. As per the information collected from the builder by the AO, the cost of construction of constructed area received

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

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

gains must be computed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. In this case, we are concerned with Section 28. Therefore, Section 145(1) is attracted to the facts of the present case. Under the mercantile system of accounting, what is due is brought into credit before it is actually received; it brings into debit

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

gains must be computed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. In this case, we are concerned with Section 28. Therefore, Section 145(1) is attracted to the facts of the present case. Under the mercantile system of accounting, what is due is brought into credit before it is actually received; it brings into debit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

gaining any goodwill. According to him, the payment made to Sr. Managers cannot be considered for deduction from the asset value. With regard to debt, withholdings and deductions also, he submitted that it is not known whether they are related to the assets or not and therefore, the valuation of the goodwill suffers from serious flaws, because the payments which

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

gaining any goodwill. According to him, the payment made to Sr. Managers cannot be considered for deduction from the asset value. With regard to debt, withholdings and deductions also, he submitted that it is not known whether they are related to the assets or not and therefore, the valuation of the goodwill suffers from serious flaws, because the payments which

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

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

capital gain is taxable for the year under consideration, still the provisions of section 14A is applicable because, when assessee makes several investments in various companies and out of such investments, only one or two investments yield exempt 11 ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 income and remaining investments does not yield exempt income, then, the expenses relatable to investment which does

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:

capital gains under Section 111A of the Act. Thereafter, the AO framed the assessment vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.09.2022, wherein after making an addition of Rs. 6,04,653/-, the income of the assessee company was determined at Rs. 72,89,95,223/-. 3. Subsequently, the Ld. Pr. CIT after

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

section 263 of the Act, viz., (1) that the assessment order is erroneous; and (ii) that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, which are to be cumulatively satisfied. 3. The Ld. Principal CIT, Tirupati failed to conclude that the Assessment Order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Ld. Principal

M/S COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Holidays Ltd (Formerly Tax, Circle 3 (2) Known As Country Club Hyderabad India Ltd) Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc8276B (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains must be computed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. In this case, we are concerned with Section 28. Therefore, Section 145(1) is attracted to the facts of the present case. Under the mercantile system of accounting, what is due is brought into credit before it is actually received; it brings into debit

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

capital gain and income from other sources\naggregating to Rs.8,54,52,625/-. After considering the submissions\nfiled by the assessee, the Ld. PCIT concluded that both the issues\nwere not examined by the Ld. AO during scrutiny assessment,\nhence treated the order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial\nto the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, vide order

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

Capital gains\"\nfor a number of years from 1999-2000, particularly for the asst. yrs.\n2005-06 and 2007-08 i.e. before and after the asst. yr. 2006-07 which is\nthe subject-matter of these proceedings. In view of the above, the CIT\ncannot under s. 263 interfere on an issue which has been accepted by\nthe Revenue

RAJASEKHAR NAIDU GALLA,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATHI

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

1. The Learned Principal Commissioner of income-tax, Tirupati, (referred to as "Ld. Pr. CTT") erred both in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to revise the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.ws. 144B of the Act 2. The order of the Ld. PCTT, erred in passing