ITO., WARD 14(1), HYDERABAD vs. JOSHITA INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act. The A.O. further noted that although the assessee has furnished relevant details of commission expenses of Rs. 2,05,32,164/-, but the fact remains that the commission expenditure incurred by the which comes to 21.23% of the total sales. Therefore, it was observed that the same is very high keeping in view the usual

JOSHITA INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act. The A.O. further noted that although the assessee has furnished relevant details of commission expenses of Rs. 2,05,32,164/-, but the fact remains that the commission expenditure incurred by the which comes to 21.23% of the total sales. Therefore, it was observed that the same is very high keeping in view the usual

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowance and gave a demand notice of almost double the liability. The AO made an addition that the appellant has violated provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and applied provisions of section 164

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act on the ground that the audit report was not filed within the prescribed time. 7. Aggrieved with the order of CPC, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the CPC. The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) are captured

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

164/- while computing the income under the normal provisions. 2.CIT(Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that said amount of ‘portfolio management fee’ paid by the assessee is direct expenditure incurred :- 2 -: on the investments, income from which is exempt and therefore has to be disallowed under Rule 8D(i). 3.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made

KOTHAPALLY FARMERS SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MEDAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowed the interest income as deduction under section 80P of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before the tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order

KOTHAPALLY FARMERS CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MEDAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowed the interest income as deduction under section 80P of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before the tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order

LEO EDIBLES & FATS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

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

164/- and inward expenses such as settlement expenses of Rs. 96.50 lakhs under trading account- NCDEX Rs. 8,262.12 thereby bringing the total purchase cost to Rs. 53,03,64,901.88. Assessee therefore, explains the so-called excess of purchase at Rs. 96,41,738/- as not excess purchase amount but forms part of normal purchase cost and prayed

VIBHA AGROTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Vibha Agrotech Limited, Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 17(2), Pan : Aaacv8157A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Ca P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit Date Of Hearing: 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dt.21.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 On The Following Grounds :

section 44AB of the Act and that there were no adverse findings in the Tax Audit Report with regard to the disallowability of the expenditure for Rs. 58,35,164

SAMA RAMACHANDRA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2005-06

164 of 2018 Sama Ramachandra Reddy Hyderabad. "The Assessing Officer has erred while disallowing the provisions amounting to Rs.2,61,000/- without considering the information and explanations offered by the assessee. The list for the same has been filed along with the return of income describing the nature of expenditure as Rs.2,00,000/- towards car maintenance

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Rishi Educational A.C.I.T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaaar1952M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Esthen N Hangal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/04/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Aop & Registered U/S 12A Of The I.T. Act Vide Proceedings Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad In F.No.Hqrs/I/15/12A/Dit(E) Dated 27.02.2003. The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 On 06.11.2017 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.Nil. M/S. Ravi Rishi Educational Society Is Run By Close Family Members Mr.N.Rajababu, Mr.Ramesh Babu, Mrs. N. Sulochana, Mrs. N. Yashoda, Mrs. N.

164 Taxman 266. (ii) ITAT Pune in the case of ACIT vs. Gurudatta Shikshan Sanstha in ITA Nos.843 & 844/PUN/2015 (iii) ITAT Cochin in the case of ACIT vs. Muslim Educational Society reported in 1 ITR(T) 527 15. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the learned CIT (A) and submitted that the learned

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

164, 165 & 166/H/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. NSL Renewable Power Income-tax, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AABCN 6009L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar Assessee by: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala Date of hearing: 23/06/2021 Date of pronouncement: 03/09/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

164, 165 & 166/H/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. NSL Renewable Power Income-tax, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AABCN 6009L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar Assessee by: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala Date of hearing: 23/06/2021 Date of pronouncement: 03/09/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

164 DTR 257[2018] 92 taxmann.com 73/256\nTaxman 240 (Bombay) (HC). As far as the worth of\nfood division is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the\nassessee submitted that assessee has followed the\nmethod prescribed under section 50B(3) of the Act\nalong with Explanation (2). He submitted that in the\nnet worth computed by the assessee

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

164 DTR 257[2018] 92 taxmann.com 73/256\nТахтап 240 (Bombay) (HC). As far as the worth of\nfood division is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the\nassessee submitted that assessee has followed the\nmethod prescribed under section 50B(3) of the Act\nalong with Explanation (2). He submitted that in the\nnet worth computed by the assessee

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

164 DTR 257[2018] 92 taxmann.com 73/256\nТахтап 240 (Bombay) (HC). As far as the worth of\nfood division is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the\nassessee submitted that assessee has followed the\nmethod prescribed under section 50B(3) of the Act\nalong with Explanation (2). He submitted that in the\nnet worth computed by the assessee

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of the entire premium of Rs.45 lakhs while passing the impugned order.\nThe learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that it is well settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as various Benches of this Tribunal the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to substitute the method of valuation as selected

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

164 taxmann.com 748 [Mum.Tribu.]. The appellant company accordingly pleaded that the delay in filing of appeal is not with a deliberate intention or gross negligence and is not an intentional fact and also the delay in filing of appeal will not benefit the assessee company in any manner. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that, the delay