RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

131 of the Act, dated\n01.12.2018, the assessee, in reply to question no.17 stated\nthat, he has received an amount of Rs.45 lakhs by way of\ncash from one Sri Murali Goud for settlement of litigation in\nland admeasuring 45 acres owned by Sri Murali Goud at\nKuntloor Village, Hayat Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy\nDistrict, bearing Survey Nos. 278/2, 278/3

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

131 of the Act, dated\n01.12.2018, the assessee, in reply to question no.17 stated\nthat, he has received an amount of Rs.45 lakhs by way of\ncash from one Sri Murali Goud for settlement of litigation in\nland admeasuring 45 acres owned by Sri Murali Goud at\nKuntloor Village, Hayat Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy\nDistrict, bearing Survey Nos.278/2, 278/3, 278/9

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Section 132(4) recorded on 22.08.2008, he\nstated that, he has made total contribution of Rs.50 lakhs\nto M/s. Vinobha Nagar Development Society for the period\nfrom December 2005 to till the year 2008. He has neither\ngiven any further details on the expenditure, manner in\nwhich he has contributed the said amount of Rs.50 lakhs to\nthe Society

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 131 of the Act she accepted that her affidavit in that respect was incorrect. By looking at the social background of her, the learned Assessing Officer dis-believed that she was doing any embroidery activity. She also does not have any bank account and she has not filed any return of income for the assessment year Page

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 131 of the Act she accepted that her affidavit in that respect was incorrect. By looking at the social background of her, the learned Assessing Officer dis-believed that she was doing any embroidery activity. She also does not have any bank account and she has not filed any return of income for the assessment year Page

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

131 of the Act, where he has\nconfirmed amount paid to the\nassessee for land\ntransactions. The Assessing Officer has analysed the\ntransactions and came to the conclusion that, the assessee\nhas received money from various people for land\ntransactions, but, same has not been reported in the return\nof income for the relevant assessment years. Although, the\nassessee

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

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

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

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

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

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

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

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

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

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

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

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

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

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage

AISWARYA ART CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE -13, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Aiswarya Art Vs. Income Tax Officer, Creations Pvt. Ltd., Ward 15(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aagca7479J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Kumar Aditya, (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.10.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.04.05.2018 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Satellite Rights. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 2 26.12.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.17,47,243. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly, Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Were Issued. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee For Which Summon U/S. 131 Of The Act Was Issued & The Statement Of The Assessee Was Recorded On 29.01.2014 Wherein He Agreed To Furnish The Required Information By 30.01.2014. Since There Was No Compliance Despite Number Of Opportunities, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Complete The Assessment U/S.144 Of The Act.

131 of the Act was issued and the statement of the assessee was recorded on 29.01.2014 wherein he agreed to furnish the required information by 30.01.2014. Since there was no compliance despite number of opportunities, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s.144 of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee being in the business

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

depreciation and Rs.45,43,61,857/- towards commission payment. 4 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who allowed the appeal of assessee. The relevant observation of Ld.CIT(A) are mentioned in Para 5.42, 5.43, 5.44 and also in 5.45 to the following effect. “5.4.2 I have considered the submissions

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an undertaking, any machinery or plant