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.

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

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.

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

M/S COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, 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 Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Holidays Ltd (Formerly Tax, Circle 3 (2) Known As Country Club Hyderabad India Ltd) Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc8276B (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

R N D WAFER MACHINES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

Section 249(4). :- 3 -: 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary”. 4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a company, whereas there is another partnership firm by name M/s.R

ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD vs. VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3. Similar grounds were raised by the assessee in other four appeals also i.e., ITA 361 to 364/Hyd/2022 for A.Ys. 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, except the amounts involved in. 4. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3. Similar grounds were raised by the assessee in other four appeals also i.e., ITA 361 to 364/Hyd/2022 for A.Ys. 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, except the amounts involved in. 4. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3. Similar grounds were raised by the assessee in other four appeals also i.e., ITA 361 to 364/Hyd/2022 for A.Ys. 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, except the amounts involved in. 4. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3. Similar grounds were raised by the assessee in other four appeals also i.e., ITA 361 to 364/Hyd/2022 for A.Ys. 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, except the amounts involved in. 4. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3. Similar grounds were raised by the assessee in other four appeals also i.e., ITA 361 to 364/Hyd/2022 for A.Ys. 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, except the amounts involved in. 4. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1658/Hyd/2025

249(3) of Act and ought to have contended the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicated the grounds on merit. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted and heard the appeal on the basis of merits, rather than dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the delay is due to reasons that are beyond the control

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

249,590/- and addition of Rs.5,14,80,879/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) had held at pages 58 to 65 as under : The facts of the case are that 11 companies amalgamated with the appellant vide the order of High Court dated 10.10.2013 w.e.f 01.04.2011. The amalgamating companies had identical shareholders and shareholding

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

249(4)(a), ignoring the fact that the assessee had not paid the tax due on the income returned by it. 2. Alternatively and without prejudice to ground no.1, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.3,89,56,740/-. 3. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring CBDT's Circular No.5 of 2014 dated

KRANTI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos 645 & 646/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kranti Educational Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-1 Pan:Aaaak6913B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P.Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/07/2024 आदेश/Order

depreciation. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority and such appeals have been filed on 4.4.2022. The learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee for both the A.Ys on the ground that there is a delay in filing of the appeals which could not be explained by the assessee with necessary

KRANTI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos 645 & 646/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kranti Educational Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-1 Pan:Aaaak6913B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P.Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/07/2024 आदेश/Order

depreciation. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority and such appeals have been filed on 4.4.2022. The learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee for both the A.Ys on the ground that there is a delay in filing of the appeals which could not be explained by the assessee with necessary

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

depreciation of Rs. 83,54,180 while computing the impugned tax demand of Rs. 6,80,57,929, hence the same shall qualify for deletion. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by upholding the order of the learned assessing officer by not giving credit to the TDS related to the disputed Assessment Year while computing