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

d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051563421(1) dated 29/03/2023 and annexed herewith for reference, 2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and I, hereby, require

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

17,20,27,320/-. Subsequent to the filing of return, a survey vi] s. 133A was carried out in the case of the appellant on 22.02.2016 and the appellant had disclosed an additional income of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- for the year under consideration. The appellant, there after filed a revised return u/s. 139(5

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

17,20,27,320/-. Subsequent to the filing of return, a survey vi] s. 133A was carried out in the case of the appellant on 22.02.2016 and the appellant had disclosed an additional income of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- for the year under consideration. The appellant, there after filed a revised return u/s. 139(5

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

5[section 115JC] or section 115VW] [or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.] [(3) The return of income referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be furnished by a person mentioned in column (ii) of the Table below to whom the conditions specified

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

d) on 29.03.2023, wherein, the AO has recorded that, despite sufficient time allowed to the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 148A(b) for compliance to the show cause notice dated 21.02.2023, there is no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the said show cause notice. The AO decided that it is a fit case for issue

ACIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANDOR MEDICAIDS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue and Cross-Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M : The appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee is directed against the common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Delhi dt.21.05.2024 for A.Y. 2022-23. Since facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, both the appeal filed

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad, dated 11.01.2023, pertains to the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. Since common issues are involved in all these three appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad, dated 11.01.2023, pertains to the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. Since common issues are involved in all these three appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad, dated 11.01.2023, pertains to the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. Since common issues are involved in all these three appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED MINARPALLY,MINARPALLY VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

disallowing the claim of\ndeduction of Rs 6,45,461 U/s 80P of the Act\n2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amended\nprovisions of Section 80P are not applicable to the assessment\nyear\n3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing\nthe return was due to the delay

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

d) any vehicle; or\n(e) any plant or machinery, the whole of the actual cost of\nwhich is allowed as deduction (whether by way of\ndepreciation or otherwise) in computing the income\nchargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or\nprofession" of any previous year.]\n17. Firstly, we will deal with the issue under Section

ITO, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAAD, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI DANDAMUDI AVANINDRA KUMAR, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and assessee for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 52 & 53/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Dandamudi Avanindra Ward – 10(2), Kumar, 88, Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.73 & 74/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) Shri Dandamudi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Avanindra Kumar, 88, Ward – 10(2), Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance made is excessive and deserves to be set right.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, who has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 within the due dates as per Section 139(1) or section 139(5) of the Act. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued

ITO, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAAD, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI DANDAMUDI AVANINDRA KUMAR, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and assessee for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 52 & 53/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Dandamudi Avanindra Ward – 10(2), Kumar, 88, Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.73 & 74/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) Shri Dandamudi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Avanindra Kumar, 88, Ward – 10(2), Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance made is excessive and deserves to be set right.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, who has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 within the due dates as per Section 139(1) or section 139(5) of the Act. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued

DANDAMUDI AVANINDRA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and assessee for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 52 & 53/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Dandamudi Avanindra Ward – 10(2), Kumar, 88, Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.73 & 74/Hyd/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) Shri Dandamudi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Avanindra Kumar, 88, Ward – 10(2), Gunrock Enclave, Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan : Acnpd1893R. अपीलार्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance made is excessive and deserves to be set right.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, who has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 within the due dates as per Section 139(1) or section 139(5) of the Act. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued