ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

161,11,36,087/- under the normal\nprovisions and “book profit” under section 115JB at Rs. 231,31,26,864/-\nafter making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance\nunder section 14A r.w Rule 8D, after taking cognizance of the fact that\nthe assessee company had earned exempt dividend income of Rs.\n13.20 crore during the year from its investments, and rejecting

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

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi).\n8.\nThe learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of\nthe LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation 1 defines the\n“relevant assessment year\", the assessment year preceding the\n assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is\nconducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment\nyears

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of\nexemption under section 54F of the Act. The relevant\nobservations of the CIT(A) are as under\n“Decision\n6.7.\nI have carefully considered the relevant and\nmaterial facts on record, in respect of this ground of appeal, as\nbrought out in the assessment order and submissions made\nduring appeal proceedings. The only issue involved in these\ngrounds

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

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi).\n8. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of\nthe LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation 1 defines the\n“relevant assessment year\", the assessment year preceding the\n assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is\nconducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment\nyears

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi).\n8.\nThe learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of\nthe LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation 1 defines the\n“relevant assessment year\", the assessment year preceding the\n assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is\nconducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment\nyears

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi).\n\n8. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of\nthe LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation 1 defines the\n“relevant assessment year\", the assessment year preceding the\n assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is\nconducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment\nyears

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi).\n8. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of\nthe LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation 1 defines the\n“relevant assessment year\", the assessment year preceding the\n assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is\nconducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment\nyears

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi).\n8. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of\nthe LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation 1 defines the\n“relevant assessment year\", the assessment year preceding the\n assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is\nconducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment\nyears

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi).\n\n8.\nThe learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of\nthe LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation 1 defines the\n“relevant assessment year\", the assessment year preceding the\n assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is\nconducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment\nyears

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

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

disallowing the short term capital loss of an amount being Rs.35,39,35,330/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in arriving at the unit loss of Rs. 1,53,71,792/-, and recalculating the short term capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant

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