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

DEPUTY 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

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, 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

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

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, MADHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 3. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.682/Hyd/2024 read as under : “1. Both on the fact and in the circumstance of the case, the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 11,56,60,835/- made u/s 80IA(13). 2. Whether

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

condone the delay and admit all the appeals\nfor hearing.\n3.\nThe grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA\nNo.682/Hyd/2024 read as under :\n\"1. Both on the fact and in the circumstance of the case, the\nld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting disallowance of Rs.\n11,56,60,835/- made u/s 80IA(13).\n2. Whether

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, MADHAPUR

condone the delay and admit all the appeals\nfor hearing.\n3.\nThe grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA\nNo.682/Hyd/2024 read as under :\n“1. Both on the fact and in the circumstance of the case, the\nld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting disallowance of Rs.\n11,56,60,835/- made u/s 80IA(13).\n2. Whether

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

801A of the Act, of an amount being Rs. 30,60,57,963/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Authorities below ought to have considered the tax relief claimed by the Appellant, an amount being Rs. 12,22,825/-, under section 90/90A of the Act, under the fact and circumstances of the case

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

801A of the Act, of an amount being Rs. 30,60,57,963/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Authorities below ought to have considered the tax relief claimed by the Appellant, an amount being Rs. 12,22,825/-, under section 90/90A of the Act, under the fact and circumstances of the case

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

801A of the Act, of an amount being Rs. 30,60,57,963/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Authorities below ought to have considered the tax relief claimed by the Appellant, an amount being Rs. 12,22,825/-, under section 90/90A of the Act, under the fact and circumstances of the case

SONALI VERMA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(6), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.778/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Smt. Sonali Verma Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12 (6) Pan:Amnpv3410A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sk Chaturvedi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order

iv) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Kuthoore Venkatasubramanian vs. PCIT reported in 168 Taxmann.com 339 (Mad.) 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) and submitted that the learned CIT (A) has considered all these contentions of the assessee and then passed the impugned order

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section