GOVIND GOUD DADIVELA,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us.

section 144 of the Act that the AO has considered entire cash deposits in bank account of the appellant as unexplained u/s. 69A of the Act without considering the purchase against the sale as the appellant is into the liquor trading, there cannot be any sales without purchases which is cardinal principal of taxation that all receipts are not taxable

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. L.RAJALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. WATERLIFE INDIA PVT.LTD., SEC'BAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri V. Durga Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Waterlife India Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Circle-17(2), Hyderabad. P.No.9, Sai Nidh, Krishnapuri Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad – 500 026. Pan: Aaacw 8089 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the 10 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) because, the ld. CIT (A) had granted deduction to the assessee U/s. 80IA of the Act which the ld. AO had disallowed. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A) because