SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation on the\nrent out premises.\n11. The ld. AO has rejected the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.\n80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the reason that his predecessors have disallowed\nthe claim of the assessee for the earlier years and has extensively relied\non the same. It is observed that the assessee

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation on the\nrent out premises.\n\n11.\nThe ld. AO has rejected the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.\n80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the reason that his predecessors have disallowed\nthe claim of the assessee for the earlier years and has extensively relied\non the same. It is observed that the assessee

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation on the\nrent out premises.\n\n11. The ld. AO has rejected the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.\n80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the reason that his predecessors have disallowed\nthe claim of the assessee for the earlier years and has extensively relied\non the same. It is observed that the assessee

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. DBS Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAFCD5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/HYD/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 DBS Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE vs. VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

Bench: Us:

4,75,04,970/-. The assessee did not file a return of income for the relevant year, prompting concerns about income escaping assessment. Numerous notices were issued under Sections 5 ITO vs. Venkata Ramanamma Sakamuri 148 and 142(1), including show cause notices, all of which went unanswered, barring one adjournment request. Despite being granted multiple opportunities via email

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.612/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) BSCPL Aurang Tollway Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. PAN : AAECB8221D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

B”, Hyderabad in Deloitte Tax Services India Private Limited Vs. DCIT-Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, ITA 341/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024 and Deloitte & Touche Assurance & Enterprise Risk Services India Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024. 17. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue, and find that the CIT(Appeals) had deleted the disallowance

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2001-02 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(2) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Years: 2001-02 Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Vs. DCIT,Circle-1(2) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034 PAN : AAACD7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P.S.R.V.V.Surya Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR Date of hearing

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

120 of the paper book. The learned Authorised\nRepresentative of the Assessee has further submitted that the\nlearned CIT(A) expressed his disagreement with the remand\nreport of the Assessing Officer by stating that the Assessing\nOfficer failed to adduce any reconciliation of his findings in\nthe remand report with categorical finding recorded by the\nAssessing Officer in the assessment

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

120 of the paper book. The learned Authorised\nRepresentative of the Assessee has further submitted that the\nlearned CIT(A) expressed his disagreement with the remand\nreport of the Assessing Officer by stating that the Assessing\nOfficer failed to adduce any reconciliation of his findings in\nthe remand report with categorical finding recorded by the\nAssessing Officer in the assessment

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

120 of the paper book. The learned Authorised\nRepresentative of the Assessee has further submitted that the\nlearned CIT(A) expressed his disagreement with the remand\nreport of the Assessing Officer by stating that the Assessing\nOfficer failed to adduce any reconciliation of his findings in\nthe remand report with categorical finding recorded by the\nAssessing Officer in the assessment

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

B”, Hyderabad in Deloitte Tax\nServices India Private Limited Vs. DCIT-Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, ITA\n341/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024 and Deloitte & Touche Assurance &\nEnterprise Risk Services India Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1),\nHyderabad, ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024.\n17. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue,\nand find that the CIT(Appeals) had deleted the disallowance

DAICEL CHIRAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Daicel Chiral Vs. 1. Deputy Technologies India Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle Medchal, 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. 2. National Faceless Pan : Aaccd8423B. Assessment Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Pradeep Revenue By: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

section 4 and 10 of the Act is that given its ordinary and natural meaning. The word income we take in any monetary return come in. The work income is of the widest amplitude and must be given its natural and grammatical meaning —CIT v G R Karthikeyan( 1993) 201 ITR 866 874(SC). Income is taxable when it accuses

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/-.”

B. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the A.O has issued the notice u/s 148 only due to the change of opinion and nor based on any new information that has come to his notice subsequently. There is no information or reason with the AO to believe that income has escaped assessment. In this regard, reliance

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/-.”

B. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the A.O has issued the notice u/s 148 only due to the change of opinion and nor based on any new information that has come to his notice subsequently. There is no information or reason with the AO to believe that income has escaped assessment. In this regard, reliance

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

depreciated as tax planning for avoidance of tax are those acts which have doubtful or questionable character as to their bonafide and righteousness. Not all legitimate acts of a tax payer which in ordinary course of conducting his affairs a person does and are under law he entitled to do, can be branded of questionable character on the anvil

SUBRAMANYAM THANNIRU,NELLORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 348/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Subramanyam Thanniru, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Nellore Income Tax, [PAN No. AQOPT0263A] Central Circle, Tirupati अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Kumar

GMR AIR CARGO & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LTD(SUCCESSOR TO GMR HYDERABAD AIR CARGO & LOGISTICS PVT LTD),SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

b) The assessment of the appellant was completed after thorough examination of records, after making detailed enquiries and after taking into account the primary facts and material as disclosed in the return as well as in the course of assessment proceedings; (c) While resorting to section 147, it is necessary that the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

4. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held the issue in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd (2018) 96 taxmann.com 155 (Rajasthan). 5. At the outset, we find that the identical issue was decided in favour