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

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

145 without recording the same in the accounts, then, such\ndebt or part thereof shall be allowed in the previous year in which such\ndebt or part thereof becomes irrecoverable and it shall be deemed that\nsuch debt or part thereof has been written off as irrecoverable in the\naccounts for the purposes of this clause.\nExplanation 1

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.

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 13. As stated above, one of the main arguments advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the 19 ITA.Nos.1689 & 1735 /Hyd/2012, M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. Department before us was that the word "expenditure" in Section

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.

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 13. As stated above, one of the main arguments advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the 19 ITA.Nos.1689 & 1735 /Hyd/2012, M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. Department before us was that the word "expenditure" in Section

SKANDHANSHI DEVELOPERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, considering the overall scenario including relevant books of accounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating material found during the course of search observed that, the profit percentage of undisclosed turnover found during the course of search proceedings should be more than the profit percentage on the turnover admitted

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)

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 13. As stated above, one of the main arguments advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Department before us was that the word "expenditure" in Section 37(1) connotes "what is paid out" and that which has gone irretrievably

GMR HOSPITALITY AND RETAIL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO HYDERABAD DUTY FREE RETAIL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2016-17 Gmr Hospitality & Retail Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited (Successor Of Ward-2(2), Hyderabad Duty Free Retail Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcg 2928 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain, Ar Revenue By Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2021 Order

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 11. The dispute in this batch of civil appeals centers around the year(s) in which deduction would be admissible for the increased liability under section 37(1). 12. We quote hereinbelow section 28(i), section 29, section 37(1) and section 145

SKANDHANSHI DEVELOPERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 145(3) of the I.Act. The books of accounts maintained by the assessee are therefore rejected.\n\n8. 1. Having rejected the books, the income of the assessee is required to be estimated based on the material available on record as per the following findings.\n\n8. 2. The assessee during the course of search proceedings as well

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 145(3) of\nthe I.T.Act. The books of accounts maintained by the assessee are therefore\nrejected.\n8.1. Having rejected the books, the income of the assessee is required to be\nestimated based on the material available on record as per the following findings.\n8.2. The assessee during the course of search proceedings as well as assessment\nproceedings accepted that

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section 135(5) of the Page 9 of 13 ITA-TP Nos. 145

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section 135(5) of the Page 9 of 13 ITA-TP Nos. 145

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

145(3) are reproduced hereunder:\n“Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or\ncompleteness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method\naccounting provided in section-section (1) [ has not been regularly followed by\nthe assessee, or income has not been computed in accordance with the\nstandards notified under section (2) ] the Assessing Officer

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 145(3) of\nthe I.T.Act. The books of accounts maintained by the assessee are therefore\nrejected.\n\n8. 1. Having rejected the books, the income of the assessee is required to be\nestimated based on the material available on record as per the following findings.\n8. 2. The assessee during the course of search proceedings as well as assessment

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income \nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission \nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and \nnot subjected to TDS, which attracts disallowance \nu/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, \nconsidering the overall scenario including relevant books of \naccounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowance is permissible. However, the contention of the appellant is incorrect as only income from contract receipts was estimated; remaining business income and expenses remained unevaluated. The appellant also failed to respond to repeated notices u/s 142(1) seeking supporting documents for claimed expenses. Therefore books of account were rightly rejected under section 145

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 145(3) of\nthe I.T.Act. The books of accounts maintained by the assessee are therefore\nrejected.\nHaving rejected the books, the income of the assessee is required to be\nestimated based on the material available on record as per the following findings.\n8.2 The assessee during the course of search proceedings as well as assessment\nproceedings accepted that

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the addition of Rs.11,44,51,818/- (supra) made by the\nAO, which, thereafter, had been sustained by the CIT(A), is vacated.\nThe Grounds of appeal Nos.3.1 to 3.4 are allowed in terms o...

1. GENERAL\n1.1\nThat on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the order\ndated 19 March 2025 issued by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-\ntax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ['Ld. CIT(A)'] is bad\nin law and liable to be quashed.\n2.\nERRONEOUS ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE\nINCOME

OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowed the deduction/debu That fact was important. It indicated the double standard adopted by the department. [Para 10] The word 'expenditure" is not defined in the Act. The word 'expenditure' is, therefore, required to be understood in the context in which it is used. Section 37 enjoins that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in sections

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

disallowing the excess claim of depreciation, which was resulted on account of excess claim of amortisation, amounting to Rs.18,104.27 lakhs and reduce the resultant loss to be carried forward to the subsequent Asst Years accordingly.” 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the assessee