MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure against the unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of bulk drugs. In the process, the assessee purchased various solvents and used them for manufacturing bulk drugs. The used solvents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 153A is bad in law, the\nassessment has no leg to stand and the same is required to be\nquashed.\n10. Without prejudice to above legal contention the appellant\ncontends that following additions are liable to be deleted on\nmerits.\n(i)\nCreditors Appearing under Loans &\nAdvances (Asset)\nRs.1,44,86,500\nSl.No.\nName of the Customer\nClosing Balance

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

section 153A is bad in law, the\nassessment has no leg to stand and the same is required to be\nquashed.\n10. Without prejudice to above legal contention the appellant\ncontends that following additions are liable to be deleted on\nmerits.\n(i)\nCreditors Appearing under Loans &\nAdvances (Asset)\nRs.1,44,86,500\nSl.No.\nName of the Customer\nClosing Balance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is not applicable to the year under reference as the same is beyond the period of six years preceding the financial year in which the search took place. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is not applicable to the year under reference as the same is beyond the period of six years preceding the financial year in which the search took place. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is not applicable to the year under reference as the same is beyond the period of six years preceding the financial year in which the search took place. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is not applicable to the year under reference as the same is beyond the period of six years preceding the financial year in which the search took place. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is not applicable to the year under reference as the same is beyond the period of six years preceding the financial year in which the search took place. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance on merits. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is not applicable to the year under reference as the same is beyond the period of six years preceding the financial year in which the search took place. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

disallowed. 1.6 Without prejudice to the above, even post reassessment proceedings, there is no additional tax liability and that Appellant is liable to pay tax under the provisions of Minimum Alternative Tax (no adjustment made to the book profits) and thus the question of income having escaped assessment does not arise. Corporate Tax Matters: 17. The d A0/DRP erred

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nthe A

disallowing the purchases solely based on the statement of a third party without independent inquiry and that the bonus payment to directors was a legitimate expenditure for services rendered, not a dividend in disguise.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "131", "36(1

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit reports

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit reports

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit reports

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit reports

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit reports

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit reports

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit reports