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

Bench: Us:

263 of the Act, dated 10.02.2025, has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of lower authorities, and the material available on record. 8. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., whether or not the claim of the assessee company

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

section 2(47)(v) of the Act and "income from capital gains was assessable for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued in the background of these facts. 2.2 The assessee filed a letter on 09-03-2016 stating that with an intention to do business, the land in question was converted into stock

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

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

capital gain and income from\nother sources aggregating to Rs 8,54,52,625 (2466759+82985866) is not\nin order and should be brought to tax.\nAccordingly, the JAO submitted a proposal u/s 263 through proper\nchannel on 04.03.2024.\n5.\nAccordingly, the Ld. PCIT has observed that M/s Flex\nDevelopers Pvt. Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the assessee company,\nhad

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)

263 of the Act. Therefore, by taking note of the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the A.O. has not carried out verification with regard to the income declared by the assessee under the head Capital Gains, has set aside the assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B

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

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

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

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

2. The Ld. Principal CIT, Tirupati erred in invoking the revisionary jurisdiction under Sec 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by stating that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Assessment order passed by the Assessing officer does not satisfy the statutory twin conditions prescribed under section 263

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

K LAXMA 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

capital gain tax for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the difference amounting to Rs. 16/- per share was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the objection raised by the assessee with regard to valuation of share is not correct and hence

N JAIVEER 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

capital gain tax for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the difference amounting to Rs. 16/- per share was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the objection raised by the assessee with regard to valuation of share is not correct and hence

K VIJAYA BHASKAR 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

capital gain tax for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the difference amounting to Rs. 16/- per share was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the objection raised by the assessee with regard to valuation of share is not correct and hence

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

capital gain tax for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the difference amounting to Rs. 16/- per share was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the objection raised by the assessee with regard to valuation of share is not correct and hence

ASHWITHA REDDY BADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor the A

2\nITA Nos. 1063 to 1066/Hyd/2025\nGaddam Mohan Reddy & Ashwitha Reddy Baddam\nORDER\nPER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :\nITA No.1066/Hyd/2025, A.Y.2015-16\nThe captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed\nagainst the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals)-Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru [in short “Ld.CIT(A)"], dated\n26.12.2024, pertaining to the assessment year

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

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

2,13,38,005 for asst. yr. 2008-\n09 i.e., more than Rs. 8,00,00,000; that 99 per cent of the total gains are\nLTCG and less than 1 per cent is STCG; that 40 per cent of investments\nare in mutual funds; the assessee had never dealt in futures, derivatives\nand options; that all the transactions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

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

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

2\nITA Nos. 1063 to 1066/Hyd/2025\nGaddam Mohan Reddy & Ashwitha Reddy Baddam\nORDER\nPER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :\nITA No.1066/Hyd/2025, A.Y.2015-16\nThe captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed\nagainst the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals)-Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru [in short “Ld.CIT(A)"], dated\n26.12.2024, pertaining to the assessment year

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

section 263 Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in the case of Ahmed Alam Khan (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2015-16, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. It could be seen from the record that there is a delay of 258 days in preferring this appeal and the reason attributed for the delay in filing the appeal