NIMMATOORI SULOCHANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

275(1)(c) of the Act, there is a time limit up-to 30.06.2020 for passing the order imposing the penalty. Further, due to on-going Covid, the CBDT has issued various Notification Nos.10/2021, 38/2021 and 74/2021 dated 27.02.2021, 27.04.2021 and 25.06.2021, respectively, in light of Taxation and Other Laws Amendment Act, 2020 [in short “TOLA”] and extended the time

LATE NIMMATOORI RAJA BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.Nos.596 & 597/Hyd

275(1)(c) of the Act, there is a time\nlimit up-to 30.06.2020 for passing the order imposing the\npenalty. Further, due to on-going Covid, the CBDT has\nissued various Notification Nos.10/2021, 38/2021 and\n74/2021 dated 27.02.2021, 27.04.2021 and 25.06.2021,\nrespectively, in light of Taxation and Other Laws\nAmendment Act, 2020 [in short \"TOLA\"] and extended the\ntime

LATE NIMMATOORI RAJABABU L/R BY ANUDEEP NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

275(1)(c) of the Act, there is a time limit up-to 30.06.2020 for passing the order imposing the penalty. Further, due to on-going Covid, the CBDT has issued various Notification Nos.10/2021, 38/2021 and 74/2021 dated 27.02.2021, 27.04.2021 and 25.06.2021, respectively, in light of Taxation and Other Laws Amendment Act, 2020 [in short “TOLA”] and extended the time

NIMMATOORI RAMESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

275(1)(c) of the Act, there is a time limit up-to 30.06.2020 for passing the order imposing the penalty. Further, due to on-going Covid, the CBDT has issued various Notification Nos.10/2021, 38/2021 and 74/2021 dated 27.02.2021, 27.04.2021 and 25.06.2021, respectively, in light of Taxation and Other Laws Amendment Act, 2020 [in short “TOLA”] and extended the time

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

275 to 306 of the paper book). While referring to the said decision of the Kolkata Bench (supra), the Ld AR has drawn our attention to Ground No.6 of that appeal wherein the issue has been captured as under: 8 ITA (TP) 104/Hyd/2022 Sanghi Industries Limited “6. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

275 ITR (Statute)\n70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 80IA (4) of the Act, it is\nclarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which\nis in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build,\nOperate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT).\n\n7.10 Further, one more

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

275 ITR (Statute)\n70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 801A (4) of the Act, it is\nclarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which\nis in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build,\nOperate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT).\n7.10 Further, one more circular

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

275 ITR (Statute)\n70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 80IA (4) of the Act, it is\nclarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which\nis in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build,\nOperate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT).\n\n7.10 Further, one more

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

275 ITR (Statute) 70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 801A (4) of the Act, it is clarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which is in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT). 7.10 Further, one more circular

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

capital from the non-resident investors. However, the said cheque was returned by the commission agent for the reason that his company did not have a bank account in India. Later on, the commission agent vide his letter requested the assessee company to make payment of Rs. 10 lac along with the balance outstanding amount. However, the assessee company

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

capital from the non-resident investors. However, the said cheque was returned by the commission agent for the reason that his company did not have a bank account in India. Later on, the commission agent vide his letter requested the assessee company to make payment of Rs. 10 lac along with the balance outstanding amount. However, the assessee company