ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. VINSRI INFOTECH, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyblock Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 M/S Vinsri Infotech, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 9(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabfv6806E Appellant Respondent & Block Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinsri Infotech, Income-Tax, Circle – Hyderabad. 9(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aabfv 6806 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasu Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

depreciation 2,20,22,155 4,37,42,203 6. Other expenditure @ 15% on 1,50,69,307 1,50,69,307 Gross Profit 7. Total undisclosed income

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation. 8.5 Hence the Ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No.2 of the assessee relates to credit entries of five undisclosed bank accounts amounting to Rs.56,72,313/- added to the total income

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

undisclosed income of the appellant company for the year under reference and computed the total income at Rs.14,73,61,155/-. 5.2 The appellant objected for the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- and filed his written submissions and the main contents of the same run as under: 1. The turnover of the assessee for the subject assessment year

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

undisclosed income of the appellant company for the year under reference and computed the total income at Rs.14,73,61,155/-. 5.2 The appellant objected for the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- and filed his written submissions and the main contents of the same run as under: 1. The turnover of the assessee for the subject assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

undisclosed income, if any, found as a result of search and this principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs., Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). The learned CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, simply deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that the order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

undisclosed income, if any, found as a result of search and this principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs., Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra). The learned CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, simply deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that the order

YELLAIAH SETTY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Yellaiah Setty, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 5, Pan – Agqps 2236 Q Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Smt. S. Narasamma Date Of Hearing: 31/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/11/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

depreciation. Even in the assessments u/s 153A, AO has made additions on the basis of the material already on record. In the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the Hon'ble Courts have ruled as under:- i) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd reported

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURES LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

ABHYUDAYA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

undisclosed income of share application money of Rs. 15 Lakhs and claimed depreciation under Income tax rules for Rs. 11,69,017/- and accordingly

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

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee

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

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee

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

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee

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

undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer had sought the reply and the assessee vide reply dt.13.12.2012 has objected to the proposal for making the addition of balance amount in its hands. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case had made addition of the remaining balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- in the hands of the assessee