M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

234/- towards Postage & courier charges. 32. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 4,55,600/- towards Recruitment expenses. 33. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 53,84,615/- towards House

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

234/- towards Postage & courier charges. 32. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 4,55,600/- towards Recruitment expenses. 33. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 53,84,615/- towards House

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

234 ITR 170 (Delhi)] 6) Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [237 ITR 668 (Guj)] 7) General Mrigendra Shum Sher Jung Bahadur Rana Vs. ITO [123 ITR 329,335 (Delhi)] We therefore submit that since all details regarding depreciation on investments are available on record to the then Assessing Officer, there is no occasion for reopening our assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

234 ITR 170 (Delhi)] 6) Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [237 ITR 668 (Guj)] 7) General Mrigendra Shum Sher Jung Bahadur Rana Vs. ITO [123 ITR 329,335 (Delhi)] We therefore submit that since all details regarding depreciation on investments are available on record to the then Assessing Officer, there is no occasion for reopening our assessment

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year:2010-11

234/- and the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.17,20,93,305/-. The AO observed that a mistake had crept in the assessment as there was an excess claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act of Rs.6,77,36,404. In order to rectify this mistake, a notice u/s 154 of the Act dated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

234), IBM India Ltd (290 ITR 183). Assessing Officer, after considering the explanation of the assessee and after examining the nature of software purchased, held that the purchases are capital in nature and further held that the same is eligible for depreciation @ 25%. During the appellate proceedings it is submitted by the assessee that they are in ITES business

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA., HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

depreciation. Considering the fact that purchases are mainly from M/s. Sujana Universal Industries Ltd which stand verified, no disallowance may be made on purchases. The Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the disallowance to 10% of expenses claimed under employee cost and administrative expenses. The ground raised is disposed off with above direction”. 9. Aggrieved with such order

SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD.

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

depreciation. Considering the fact that purchases are mainly from M/s. Sujana Universal Industries Ltd which stand verified, no disallowance may be made on purchases. The Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the disallowance to 10% of expenses claimed under employee cost and administrative expenses. The ground raised is disposed off with above direction”. 9. Aggrieved with such order

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

ACIT, CC-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. LEPL PROJECTS LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

234 of the paper book), which is to the following effect : “Addition of Rs.116,04,55,413/- made u/s 68 of the Act on account of excess receipts from contract works: During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to submit the nature of real estate and construction activities and details of revenue generated from and related expenditure

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

depreciation on assets during the construction period but we are not concerned with them. :- 30 -: Elgen (India) Pv. Ltd., Hyd. 37. From the above discussion it appears that there is an established accountancy practice about the capitalisation of expenditure like payment of interest towards the cost of assets and there is also a guideline for showing the income earned during

FUSION LASTEK TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section. 48. The income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely:— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset

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