ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIVA PRASAD NIDAMARTHY, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Joint Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Income Tax (Osd), Hyderabad Circle-5(1) / [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent सी.ओ./ C.O. Nos. 14 & 15/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021) निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Vs [Erstwhile Circle-16(1)] [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Hyderabad क्रॉस ऑब्जेक्टर / Cross-Objector प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.N. Murthy, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 26/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Challenging The Order(S) Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Cit(A)”) In The Case Of Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy (“The Assessee”) For

condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 4. Two additions are in question in this appeal. One is in respect of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,53,000/- under section 69A of the Act and the other is Rs. 2.35 crores under section 68 of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that

GSRVPL-RVNIPL-JV,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Gsrvpl – Rvnipl – Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan Aabag 8487D

condone the delay of 70 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal as under. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (AOP) and filed its Return of Income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 26.09.2015 admitting NIL income. The return was initially processed u/s.143(1) of the Income

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.432/Hyd/2025 4 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Sarvotham Care, having income from two units, one being a solar power generation unit eligible for deduction under section 80IA

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

199 of the Act further provides that where any deduction is made under the Chapter and paid to the Central Government, then the same is to be treated as payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income such deduction is made. 18. Section 200 of the Act lays down the duty of the person deducting tax, which

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

199 of the Act further provides that where any deduction is made under the Chapter and paid to the Central Government, then the same is to be treated as payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income such deduction is made. 18. Section 200 of the Act lays down the duty of the person deducting tax, which

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

199 of the Act further provides that where any deduction is made under the Chapter and paid to the Central Government, then the same is to be treated as payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income such deduction is made. 18. Section 200 of the Act lays down the duty of the person deducting tax, which

POOJA CRAFTED HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 61/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pooja Crafted Homes (P) Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Ltd, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadcp2869A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S K Gupta, राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/03/2024 आदेश/Order

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company is engaged in the construction of commercial and residential apartments and development of open plots. The assessee company filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.10.2018 admitting total income of Rs.1,26,44,793/-. The case

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the above two appeals by the assessee is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA No.695/Hyd/2020 – A.Y 2012-13 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in execution of electrical, civil and infrastructure projects. It filed its return of income on 29.9.2012 declaring total income

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the above two appeals by the assessee is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA No.695/Hyd/2020 – A.Y 2012-13 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in execution of electrical, civil and infrastructure projects. It filed its return of income on 29.9.2012 declaring total income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

delay is condoned therefore. 3. We notice at the outset that the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action holding the impugned assessment as void ab initio as follows: “VIII) During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR submitted following submissions:- "SUBMISSIONS: On the above grounds of appeal

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

199/- raising a gross demand of Rs.24,05,964/- including the interest u/s 234A and 234B amounting to Rs.12,31,648/-. During the course of assessment, addition of Rs.18,50,000/- was made on the ground that confirmation letters were not received from the persons from whom assessee had received loans and also made addition of Rs.15

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

199/- raising a gross demand of Rs.24,05,964/- including the interest u/s 234A and 234B amounting to Rs.12,31,648/-. During the course of assessment, addition of Rs.18,50,000/- was made on the ground that confirmation letters were not received from the persons from whom assessee had received loans and also made addition of Rs.15

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

199/- raising a gross demand of Rs.24,05,964/- including the interest u/s 234A and 234B amounting to Rs.12,31,648/-. During the course of assessment, addition of Rs.18,50,000/- was made on the ground that confirmation letters were not received from the persons from whom assessee had received loans and also made addition of Rs.15

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged