NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

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

search and seizure then the necessary consequential proceedings should have also been initiated against the erring persons. In our opinion, the speed money / illegal money / gratification paid by the assessee for getting the contract cannot be permitted and the Revenue Page 29 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Authorities had rightly

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

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

search and seizure then the necessary consequential proceedings should have also been initiated against the erring persons. In our opinion, the speed money / illegal money / gratification paid by the assessee for getting the contract cannot be permitted and the Revenue Page 29 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Authorities had rightly

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

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

search and seizure then the necessary consequential proceedings should have also been initiated against the erring persons. In our opinion, the speed money / illegal money / gratification paid by the assessee for getting the contract cannot be permitted and the Revenue Page 29 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Authorities had rightly

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

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

search and seizure then the necessary consequential proceedings should have also been initiated against the erring persons. In our opinion, the speed money / illegal money / gratification paid by the assessee for getting the contract cannot be permitted and the Revenue Page 29 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Authorities had rightly

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

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

search and seizure then the necessary consequential proceedings should have also been initiated against the erring persons. In our opinion, the speed money / illegal money / gratification paid by the assessee for getting the contract cannot be permitted and the Revenue Page 29 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Authorities had rightly

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

depreciation on the basis of search proceedings conducted u/sec.132 of the Act in the case of Shri Kewalchand Jain of Mumbai and material found during the course of search proceedings coupled with the 21 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 statement recorded from Shri Kewalchand Jain. It is also not in dispute that a search and seizure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

depreciation on the basis of search proceedings conducted u/sec.132 of the Act in the case of Shri Kewalchand Jain of Mumbai and material found during the course of search proceedings coupled with the 21 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 statement recorded from Shri Kewalchand Jain. It is also not in dispute that a search and seizure

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Search and Seizure operation, back up of ERP\ndata was taken in a pen drive and in HDD. Further, print outs of the extracts\nwere also taken and seized as Annexure- ANNX/SIPIPL/OFF/01. However, huge\ndiscrepancies were found in the data and the amounts shown in the ERP were found\nunreliable.\n\n6. 2. It is found from some

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. KIRAN INFERTILITY CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-An Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.238/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kiran Infertility Income Tax, Centre (P) Ltd Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabck6053F (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2024 आदेश/Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.03.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing Medical Services In Connection With Infertility Among Women/Men & Surrogacy Treatment & Is Deriving Income From Business & Other Sources. A Search & Page 1 Of 30

Seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 10.01.2017 in the case of the assessee. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 6.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,28,71,960/-. The case was selected for compulsory manual scrutiny (being the specified year for the search assessments) following

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

search and seizure operation. Inspite of this fact, the revenue could not bring to our notice any specific instances of incurring of these expenses in violation of the object of the trust. Further more, the Ld. CIT(A) has C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 already given his factual findings that, the assessee has already incurred more than 85% of the gross

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

search and seizure operation. Inspite of this fact, the revenue could not bring to our notice any specific instances of incurring of these expenses in violation of the object of the trust. Further more, the Ld. CIT(A) has C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 already given his factual findings that, the assessee has already incurred more than 85% of the gross

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

search and seizure operation. Inspite of this fact, the revenue could not bring to our notice any specific instances of incurring of these expenses in violation of the object of the trust. Further more, the Ld. CIT(A) has C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 already given his factual findings that, the assessee has already incurred more than 85% of the gross

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

search and seizure operation. Inspite of this fact, the revenue could not bring to our notice any specific instances of incurring of these expenses in violation of the object of the trust. Further more, the Ld. CIT(A) has C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 already given his factual findings that, the assessee has already incurred more than 85% of the gross

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

search and seizure operation. Inspite of this fact, the revenue could not bring to our notice any specific instances of incurring of these expenses in violation of the object of the trust. Further more, the Ld. CIT(A) has C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 already given his factual findings that, the assessee has already incurred more than 85% of the gross

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

search and seizure operation. Inspite of this fact, the revenue could not bring to our notice any specific instances of incurring of these expenses in violation of the object of the trust. Further more, the Ld. CIT(A) has C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 already given his factual findings that, the assessee has already incurred more than 85% of the gross

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

search and seizure operation. Inspite of this fact, the revenue could not bring to our notice any specific instances of incurring of these expenses in violation of the object of the trust. Further more, the Ld. CIT(A) has C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 already given his factual findings that, the assessee has already incurred more than 85% of the gross

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

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

search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 20.10.2005. Pursuant thereto notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee. The assessee had filed the return of income on 24.01.2007 claiming the deduction under Chapter VI A of the Act. The copy of the acknowledgment claiming deduction of Rs.21

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

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

search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 20.10.2005. Pursuant thereto notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee. The assessee had filed the return of income on 24.01.2007 claiming the deduction under Chapter VI A of the Act. The copy of the acknowledgment claiming deduction of Rs.21