DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. COASTAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

207 (Bom) (ii) sagar Enterprises-257 ITR 335 (Guj) (iii) Mumtaz Haji Mohammed Memon- 408 ITR 268 (Guj) , PB - 59 - 65 (caselaws) (iv) Misra Preserves (P) Ltd -350 ITR 222 (All) (v) Fair Investment Ltd- 357 ITR 146 (Del) Further, the AO has not adverted to the dates of payment by Safeco Project (I)) Ltd. A portion of RS.7.65

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

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

207\n1,36,074 2,30,281\nSeries A1 CCPS\n10.1.\nThe CCPS issued by the assessee are Compulsorily\nConvertible into equity shares on or before the initial public\noffer in the ratio of 1:1 at a conversion price which is\nequivalent to the price on which CCPS was subscribed by the\n20\nITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025

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

207\n1,36,074\n2,30,281\n10.1.\nThe CCPS issued by the assessee are Compulsorily\nConvertible into equity shares on or before the initial public\noffer in the ratio of 1:1 at a conversion price which is\nequivalent to the price on which CCPS was subscribed by the\n20\nITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025\ninvestors. The assessee

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

207\n1,36,074\n2,30,281\n10.1.\nThe CCPS issued by the assessee are Compulsorily\nConvertible into equity shares on or before the initial public\noffer in the ratio of 1:1 at a conversion price which is\nequivalent to the price on which CCPS was subscribed by the\n20\nITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025\ninvestors. The assessee

BIOGENEX LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 234B of the Act while passing the Final Assessment Order dated 27.01.2022 11. The Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270(A) of the Income Tax Act. 12. The appellant may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAGNA HOMES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Magna Homes, Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Pan : Aapfg5917K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 148A(b) was issued to the appellant on 16.03.2022 and in response, the appellant has 3 ITA 327/Hyd/2024 not furnished any information. Order u/s. 148A(d) was passed with the prior approval of the specified authority. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 30.03.2022. However, the appellant has not filed any return

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 of earlier assessment years. 9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO is not justified in considering short credit of TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief

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

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustified\nunless the contents are independently proved against the\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025