THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

282 (SC) In this case, the issue is whether the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(vii) independent items of deduction and operate in there are distinct and respective fields, which is not an issue in the present case. Hence, the above case law has no relevance to the present case. b) CIT Vs. Bank

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

282 (SC) In this case, the issue is whether the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(vii) independent items of deduction and operate in there are distinct and respective fields, which is not an issue in the present case. Hence, the above case law has no relevance to the present case. b) CIT Vs. Bank

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

282 (SC) In this case, the issue is whether the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(vii) independent items of deduction and operate in there are distinct and respective fields, which is not an issue in the present case. Hence, the above case law has no relevance to the present case. b) CIT Vs. Bank

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

282 (SC) In this case, the issue is whether the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(vii) independent items of deduction and operate in there are distinct and respective fields, which is not an issue in the present case. Hence, the above case law has no relevance to the present case. b) CIT Vs. Bank

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

282 (SC) In this case, the issue is whether the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(vii) independent items of deduction and operate in there are distinct and respective fields, which is not an issue in the present case. Hence, the above case law has no relevance to the present case. b) CIT Vs. Bank

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

282 Taxman 301 (SC). 9. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the authorities below submitted that, the survey conducted in the case of the assessee revealed the role of the appellant in deriving bogus Long-Term Capital Gain from penny stock. Further, the appellant has categorically admitted in his statement recorded

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

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

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

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

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

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

capital and not used for business purpose, we find that sole basis for the PCIT to come to conclusion that the assessee has paid interest on loans and diverted interest-bearing funds to sister concerns for non-business purpose. We find that once gain the observation of the PCIT is devoid of merits. The assessee has discounted bills receivables with

ALPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

gains derived by the assessee company from its eligible business of manufacturing blow molded products, therefore, the authorities below had rightly concluded that the amount so received was not eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80IC of the Act. 22. Alternatively, we also concur with the DRP that as the assessee company was entitled to claim deduction under Section

KATRAPALLY VENUMADHAV,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gain of Rs.57,75,000/- without observing the fact that the appellant Is GPA holder only but not the actual owner of the Flat sold. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer towards gross salary income earned of Rs.7

KATRAPALLY VENUMADHAV,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gain of Rs.57,75,000/- without observing the fact that the appellant Is GPA holder only but not the actual owner of the Flat sold. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer towards gross salary income earned of Rs.7

VIJAYALAKSHMI ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD 15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.244 & 245/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Vijayalakshmi Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15(1) Pan:Aanfv2591E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/Order

1 of 22 ITA Nos 244 and 245 of 2021 Vijayalakshmi Enterprises 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee in these two appeals, however, the grounds of the assessee are in two folds i.e. one relates to the action of the learned Pr.CIT in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act holding that

VIJAYALAKSHMI ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD 15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.244 & 245/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Vijayalakshmi Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15(1) Pan:Aanfv2591E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/Order

1 of 22 ITA Nos 244 and 245 of 2021 Vijayalakshmi Enterprises 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee in these two appeals, however, the grounds of the assessee are in two folds i.e. one relates to the action of the learned Pr.CIT in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act holding that

ANAND BODDAPATY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He accordingly, submitted that, the order of the Assessing 6 ITA.No.375/Hyd./2025 Officer allowing exemption u/sec.54F of the Act is in accordance with law and requested the PCIT to drop the proposal for invoking provisions of sec.263 of the Act. The learned PCIT considering the facts and circumstances

SHAKUNTALA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ms. Shakuntala Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aeepd0217J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2024

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous and unsustainable in law apart from being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that proper notices were not served on the appellant as required under section 282