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

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

disallowed the same.\n5. Ostensibly, the assessee during the course of the assessment\nproceedings came up with a new claim, wherein based on a revised\nstatement of computation of income that was filed with the A.O.\non 29.08.2010, it was claimed by him that as the agricultural land\nsituated at Village: Manchirevula was not a “capital asset” within\nthe meaning

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

19 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— [( i) "non-scheduled bank" means a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), which is not a scheduled bank;] [( ia)] "rural branch" means a branch of a scheduled bank

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

19 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— [( i) "non-scheduled bank" means a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), which is not a scheduled bank;] [( ia)] "rural branch" means a branch of a scheduled bank

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

19 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— [( i) "non-scheduled bank" means a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), which is not a scheduled bank;] [( ia)] "rural branch" means a branch of a scheduled bank

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

19 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— [( i) "non-scheduled bank" means a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), which is not a scheduled bank;] [( ia)] "rural branch" means a branch of a scheduled bank

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

19 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— [( i) "non-scheduled bank" means a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), which is not a scheduled bank;] [( ia)] "rural branch" means a branch of a scheduled bank

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

19 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— [( i) "non-scheduled bank" means a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), which is not a scheduled bank;] [( ia)] "rural branch" means a branch of a scheduled bank

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

19 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— [( i) "non-scheduled bank" means a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), which is not a scheduled bank;] [( ia)] "rural branch" means a branch of a scheduled bank

LIGHT ASSOCIATES MINISTRY OF ST. BARNABA SOCIETY,KHAMMAM vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS)-3,, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Light Associates Ministry Vs. Income Tax Officer Of St. Barnaba Society (Exemptions)-3 Khammam Hyderabad Pan:Aaatl4330L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate B. Nishitha Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9 Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2010-11. 2. There Is A Delay Of 490 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay Which Is Due To The Prevailing Covid Situation. After Hearing Both The Sides, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

19,39,823/(out of this amount of Rs 17,83,716 has been received from Caruna Bal Vikas Chennai) has been taken from record. In these circumstances, once the exemption is being denied it has to be on full amount and not part amount. In the result, appeal 5. is dismissed on delay as well as on merits with

ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SAINT GOBAIN VETROTEX INDIA LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) to the tune of Rs. 1,13,28,493/- and the other is the addition of Rs. 1,99,76,907/- towards disallowance of depreciation on printers, UPS, Cable Works and Computer Tables. 3. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, at the outset, both

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...

155 ITR\n442/[1984] 19 Taxman 73 (AP). It was held that 'that the assessing\nofficer cannot reject the books of accounts merely because in his view,\na different method of accounting would be better suited.\"\nb) The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in CIT v. Anil Kumar & Co.\n[2016] 386 ITR 702/67 taxmann.com 278 held that jurisdiction

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

disallowing such expenditure. It appears that an overseas agent of an Indian exporter operates in his own country and no part of his income arises in India and his commission is usually remitted directly to him by way of TT or posting of cheques/demand drafts in India and therefore the same is not received by him or on his behalf

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 10(23C) of the Act. Hence, the provision of Rs. 2,81,14,669/- claimed by the assessee as application of income is not allowed to the assessee. Hence, we dismiss the claim of the assessee on this count. 15. The alternate argument submitted by the Ld. AR is that, even if provision of Rs.2

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

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. 13 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs." 6.3.1. Applying the judgment

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

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. 13 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs." 6.3.1. Applying the judgment

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

disallowing the deduction of Rs 1,73,90,944 claimed under section 54F of the Act is unsustainable both on facts and in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the Appellant had Invested out of the sale proceeds of land at Manchirevula and invested u/s. 54-F Rs.1,60,60,600/- In Land at Gopanpally Village

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

19 ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022, ITA.No.1415/Hyd./2019 And ITA.No.389/Hyd./2020 13. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business of infrastructure development, filed it’s return of income for the assessment year 2016-2017 on 18.10.2016 admitting income of Rs.28,06,85,620/- under normal provisions of the Income