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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

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

disallowance of the claim deduction of expenditure of Rs.15,89,486/- made by the AO towards expenses incurred against unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap and also challenged the legal validity of notice issued u/s 153A for the assessment year 2011-12 in light of Explanation - 1 to Section 153A(1) of the Act and argued that

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi). 8. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation - 1 defines the “relevant assessment year”, the assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi). 8. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation - 1 defines the “relevant assessment year”, the assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

disallowed the claim on the short ground that the benefit is not available to the appellant as the notification specifying Ranga Reddy District as backward area was published on 20.07.2016 and therefore the Appellant Company is not eligible to the deduction as the addition and installation of the machinery were made prior to the said date. Aggrieved with the action

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of donations under Section 80G towards CSR expenditure. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate, referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024, submitted that, the assessment

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), and addition towards Form 26AS mismatch. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A., referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.12.2024, submitted

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

disallowance of section\n54F of the Act is hereby deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is allowed.\nThe Revenue being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) has\ncarried the matter in appeal before us.\n6.\nWe have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both\nparties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the\nmaterial available on record, as well

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

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

disallowance of the claim deduction of expenditure of Rs.15,89,486/- made by the AO towards expenses incurred against unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap and also challenged the legal validity of notice issued u/s 153A for the assessment year 2011-12 in light of Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the Act and argued that

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

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

disallowance of the claim deduction of expenditure of Rs.1,77,82,220/- made by the AO towards expenses incurred against unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap and also challenged the legal validity of notice issued u/s 153A for the assessment year 2011-12 in light of Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the Act and argued

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

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

disallowance of the claim deduction of expenditure of Rs.1,77,82,220/- made by the AO towards expenses incurred against unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap and also challenged the legal validity of notice issued u/s 153A for the assessment year 2011-12 in light of Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the Act and argued

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

1. Ld. Pr. CIT-1 has wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 as the AO after scrutinizing all the details, making enquiries, proper verification and consideration of the entire material on record had accepted the claim of depreciation treating the right to collect toll as an intangible asset and accepted the loss returned after due application of mind. Thus, invoking provisions

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 1,42,72,621/-, and MAT adjustment u/s 115JB amounting to Rs. 10,57,25,727/-, along with addition of book profit u/s 115JB of Rs. 10,57,25,727/-. 6. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, assessee has filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 27.01.2017. Considering the objections

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

1% of annual average of monthly average investments in mutual funds. 7. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Sri V. Siva Kumar, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to ledger account of HDFC Floating Rate Income Fund submitted that, the assessee-company has made investment

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of the provision for periodic maintenance of Rs. 1,11,47,4861- by stating that appellant has not actually paid these expenses and it is only a provision and ignoring that reserve was created under mandate agreement in between the principal i.e., NHAI and concessionaire and also there is no power 1 right except to mandate the NHAI terms

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of the provision for periodic maintenance of Rs. 1,11,47,4861- by stating that appellant has not actually paid these expenses and it is only a provision and ignoring that reserve was created under mandate agreement in between the principal i.e., NHAI and concessionaire and also there is no power 1 right except to mandate the NHAI terms

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of the provision for periodic maintenance of Rs. 1,11,47,4861- by stating that appellant has not actually paid these expenses and it is only a provision and ignoring that reserve was created under mandate agreement in between the principal i.e., NHAI and concessionaire and also there is no power 1 right except to mandate the NHAI terms

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.

161(Bom) while holding that the opinion of Internal Audit Party of Income Tax Department cannot be regarded as information within the meaning of section 147(b) for the purpose of reopening of the assessment has observed as under: “4. It is settled law that the opinion of the Internal Audit party of the Income Tax Department cannot be recorded

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

1. The Document Identification Number (DIN) quoted on the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 21.06.2022 under section 144C(5) of the Act being handwritten, and not verifiable on the income-tax portal, the directions issued by the learned DRP are non-est and bad in law. 2. The leamed Assessment Unit (AU) erred in passing the assessment