K VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

224 of the I.T. Act. According to him, since the Assessing Officer has passed the order without making any enquiry which should have been made or the order is passed allowing a relief without enquiry, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, he set aside the order

N JAIDEEP REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

224 of the I.T. Act. According to him, since the Assessing Officer has passed the order without making any enquiry which should have been made or the order is passed allowing a relief without enquiry, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, he set aside the order

N JAIVEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

224 of the I.T. Act. According to him, since the Assessing Officer has passed the order without making any enquiry which should have been made or the order is passed allowing a relief without enquiry, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, he set aside the order

K LAXMA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

224 of the I.T. Act. According to him, since the Assessing Officer has passed the order without making any enquiry which should have been made or the order is passed allowing a relief without enquiry, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, he set aside the order

CLONZ BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcc7742B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2024

depreciation, thus demonstrating a heedless manner of assessment and appeal. 5. The Assessing Officer misguided himself in calculating fair value due to a non-constructive reading of the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) along with Rule 11UA.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Bio-Pharmaceuticals

PATHFINDER PUBLISHING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income tax Act, to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the books profits in accordance with

ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.244/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ) Acit Vs. Southern Power Circle 1(1) Distribution Company Of Tirupati Andhra Pradesh, Tirupati Pan:Aahcs4056Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Mohan Acharya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/07/2024 आदेश/Order

section (43), where a portion of the cost of asset acquired by the assessee has been met directly or indirectly by the central/state govts, in the form of subsidy or grant shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset to the assessee. Since the appellant has acquired the assets out of contribution received from consumers and subsidies

C.M.D. RATNAKAR DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD vs. JASPER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

Depreciation of Rs. 7,18,04,971/-. 7. The appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and / or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts

JASPER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

Depreciation of Rs. 7,18,04,971/-. 7. The appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and / or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

depreciation and financial expenses.\n11. 9. In both the assessment orders, the Assessing Officer held that the respondent-assessee had not commenced business activities as they had not undertaken any manufacturing activity or made downstream investments. It was observed that the respondent- assessee, after receiving approval of Foreign Investment Promotion Soard (FIPS) dated 20.12.2000 acquired shares capital of Ambuja Cement

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

depreciation and financial expenses.\n11. 9. In both the assessment orders, the Assessing Officer held that the\nrespondent-assessee had not commenced business activities as they had not\nundertaken any manufacturing activity or made downstream investments. It\nwas observed that the respondent- assessee, after receiving approval of\nForeign Investment Promotion Soard (FIPS) dated 20.12.2000 acquired shares\ncapital of Ambuja Cement

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Assessing Officer may require on specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Assessing Officer shall, by an order in wiring, make an assessment of the total income

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