MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

38,140/-u/s. 801B(10) is disallowed and brought to tax. " 6.1 In this regard, it is important to note that the issue under dispute in the impugned AY 2014-15 is not new to the case of the assessee in as much as the assessee has been claiming deduction u/s, 80(IB)(10) of the Act in respect

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

38,140/-u/s. 801B(10) is disallowed and brought to tax. " 6.1 In this regard, it is important to note that the issue under dispute in the impugned AY 2014-15 is not new to the case of the assessee in as much as the assessee has been claiming deduction u/s, 80(IB)(10) of the Act in respect

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

38,140/-u/s. 801B(10) is disallowed and brought to tax. " 6.1 In this regard, it is important to note that the issue under dispute in the impugned AY 2014-15 is not new to the case of the assessee in as much as the assessee has been claiming deduction u/s, 80(IB)(10) of the Act in respect

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

38,00,527/- and (ii) Disallowance of CSR expenses of Rs. 1,42,97,133/- against the returned income of Rs. 50,81,16,931/-. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved, the assessee raised certain objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also going through the material available on record, dismissed the objections raised

JASPER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance under Section 14A, even though no income exempt under Section 10(34) or Section 10(38) was claimed as exempt

SANJAY GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2012-13 Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-3(1), Pan: Acgpg 3696 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2021 Order

disallowing the claim U/s. 10(38) of LTCG, which was confirmed by CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad vide order dated 20/10/2016. iv. In the assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 of Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, wife of Shri Sanjay Gupta, it is seen that she was also claimed the exemption U/s. 10(38) of an amount

SRI KSSV FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Kssv Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaack9655Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure 'relatable' to the income to which Section 10 (other than Section 10(38) of the Act) or Section

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

disallow the exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and to treat the long term capital gains as income

VENU GOPAL KARWA,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Venu Gopal Karwa Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Karimnagar Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aavpk2698B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V Guna Sekhar Reddy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.10.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary, Hose Property & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 6.3.2016 Belatedly Declaring Taxable Income At Rs.47,71,060/-. The Return Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee To Which The Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished The Requisite Details. One Of The Cass Reasons Page 1 Of 14

section 68 of the I.T. Act. Similarly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.45,084/- being unexplained expenditure u/s 69C for arranging accommodation entry. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order also rejected the claim of the gift and made addition of Rs.14,03,490/- as income from other sources and made addition of Rs.1

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

disallowing the LTCG claimed of Rs.6,40,51,466/- as exempt u/s 10(38). Page 2 of 26 ITA No 450 of 2022 and SA NO 1 of 2024 Ishoo Narang 14. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6.,45.764/ made towards unexplained expenditure on account of commission @1% of sale price of shares presumed to have

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

38. Learned AR submits that the orders of the authorities below cannot be sustained because the learned Assessing Officer failed to record dissatisfaction requisite under section 14(2) of the Act, they overlooked the fact that the assessee had enough funds and further that the disallowance cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income. Learned AR further submitted that the learned

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

38. Learned AR submits that the orders of the authorities below cannot be sustained because the learned Assessing Officer failed to record dissatisfaction requisite under section 14(2) of the Act, they overlooked the fact that the assessee had enough funds and further that the disallowance cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income. Learned AR further submitted that the learned

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

38. Learned AR submits that the orders of the authorities below cannot be sustained because the learned Assessing Officer failed to record dissatisfaction requisite under section 14(2) of the Act, they overlooked the fact that the assessee had enough funds and further that the disallowance cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income. Learned AR further submitted that the learned

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

10,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 27.09.2016. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 06.03.2020, however, no return was filed in response. The A.O. noted that, an expenditure of Rs. 43,41,133/- booked

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

10,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 27.09.2016. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 06.03.2020, however, no return was filed in response. The A.O. noted that, an expenditure of Rs. 43,41,133/- booked

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

10,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 27.09.2016. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 06.03.2020, however, no return was filed in response. The A.O. noted that, an expenditure of Rs. 43,41,133/- booked

DEEPAK NAGORI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Deepak Nagori Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abspn3300M Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Appellant Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return (Tr) For Fy 2011-12 By Declaring Income Of Rs.5,82,686/-. The Itr Includes Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.23,08,721/- & Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Of It Act 1961. Notices Issued Under Section 148 & Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T Act, 1961 & The Same Was Upheld By Ld. Cit(A).

38) of the Act of Rs. 23,08,721 was claimed. 9. Thus, the Assessing Officer concluded that mere investment of Rs.24,000/- is returned, an income of Rs.23,32,721/- which is 97 times of investment and the increase is 9620%. In view of the above observation, Assessing Officer Page 7 of 16 ITA 1713 of 2018 came

MANJEERA PROJECTS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.16,99,10,673 u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee, reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below, submitted that Page