THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

disallowance u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act was called for in the case of the assessee company. 21. Apropos the claim of the Ld. AR that as the assessee company had entered into an “agreement”, dated 18.02.2010 for subscription of shares of the aforementioned company, viz. M/s. Kineta Metals and Minerals Limited (supra) which was before the insertion

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD vs. VALUE PHARMA RETAIL(HYD) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

disallowed if they are made in cash in the' sums exceeding the amount specified under section 40A(3). We have earlier observed that Rule 6DD has to be read along with Section 40A(3).The Rule also contemplates payments made for stock-in-trade and raw materials. This Rule is in accordance with the terms of Section

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 :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

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

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

Section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.10 crores in AY.2011-12 and Rs.4 crores in AY.2012-13; respectively. The CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion in issue reads as follows: “5.0 Addition on account of unexplained expenditure/disallowance u/s.40A(3) and declarations made u/s.132(4), but not admitted in return of income - Rs.10,00,00,000 /-: 5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, conducted

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

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

Section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.10 crores in AY.2011-12 and Rs.4 crores in AY.2012-13; respectively. The CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion in issue reads as follows: “5.0 Addition on account of unexplained expenditure/disallowance u/s.40A(3) and declarations made u/s.132(4), but not admitted in return of income - Rs.10,00,00,000 /-: 5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, conducted

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

section 14A of the Act and disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 5,00,40,155/- by applying the method laid

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

section 14A of the Act and disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 5,00,40,155/- by applying the method laid

BALA REDDY GOPU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowance u/s 14A as per the direction in ITA No. 455/Hyd/2017 (supra). 11. As regards ground Nos. 2 to 5 regarding addition of Rs. 7,68,03,155/- u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee is deriving income from salary, income from house property, income from other sources etc., and the assessee filed return of income for asst. Year

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed"

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

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) for all the three assessment years and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 5. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, while reiterating the submissions made

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED , , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed"

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

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) for all the three assessment years and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 5. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, while reiterating the submissions made

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement. for sale with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan dated

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement. for sale with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan dated

MOHAMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement. for sale with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan dated

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement. for sale with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan dated

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement. for sale with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan dated

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement. for sale with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan dated

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement. for sale with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan dated

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

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

155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement. for sale with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan dated