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

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

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

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

gains of business or profession in sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. By this, the assessee seeks compliance with Explanation-2 of section 37 of the Act and, therefore, the Revenue shall not have any grievance. Whether or not the assessee suo moto disallowed the spend towards the CSR while computing the business income is a verifiable fact

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263, consequently, the original assessment\norder passed by the A.O. comes to life and gets restored. Ld. CIT(A) has to adjudicate\nthe appeal preferred by the assessee on the additions made in the assessment order\ndated 29.03.2004. We are of the opinion that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which\nwas dismissed as not maintainable should be restored

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

capital gains of 5 Gaddam Mohan Reddy vs. ITO Rs.16,29,727/-. The AO while culminating the assessment, inter alia, initiated penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 28/09/2022 imposed the penalty for concealment of income of Rs.5

AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

capital gains on sale of land. Further according to the learned AR, there is no non-application of mind on the part of the learned Assessing Officer inasmuch as the learned Assessing Officer raised a specific query as to whether the property sold under sale deed dated 11/04/2014 happens to be a residential house or an open plot of land

RAMESH MUNAIAH CHINTAKUNTA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

1,72,22,931/-. 3. Subsequently the learned PCIT on examination of the assessment record found that while computing the Long Term Capital Gains in respect of the vacant plot located at Nellore, the assessee treated only ₹ 9 lakhs as sale consideration and disclosing the long term capital loss of ₹ 6,92,774/- whereas, it was asserted that the full

RATANLAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

1 of 13 ITA Nos 565 to 568 of 2020 Madhu Devi Jain and others ITA No.565/Hyd/2020 – Smt. Madhu Devi Jain. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, business income, capital gains and other sources. She filed her return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 electronically

MADHU DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

1 of 13 ITA Nos 565 to 568 of 2020 Madhu Devi Jain and others ITA No.565/Hyd/2020 – Smt. Madhu Devi Jain. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, business income, capital gains and other sources. She filed her return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 electronically

CHANDRA DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

1 of 13 ITA Nos 565 to 568 of 2020 Madhu Devi Jain and others ITA No.565/Hyd/2020 – Smt. Madhu Devi Jain. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, business income, capital gains and other sources. She filed her return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 electronically

RAJESH KUMAR JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

1 of 13 ITA Nos 565 to 568 of 2020 Madhu Devi Jain and others ITA No.565/Hyd/2020 – Smt. Madhu Devi Jain. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, business income, capital gains and other sources. She filed her return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 electronically

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