GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

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

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,67,172/-. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee and thus, we reject the argument of the assessee and uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. In the result appeal

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

4 & 5 arises out of the order passed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR argued these grounds on technical grounds as well as on merits. As far as the technical issue is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that, the CPC while processing the ROI u/s.143(1) of the Act made an addition of Rs.35

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. RAMESH BABU SEGU, HYDERABAD

4) were\nnot followed a while obtaining the Certificate U/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act\n1872 in the case of the assessee which are to be followed mandatorily. Therefore, we\nhave no hesitation to hold that this Certificate is not a valid Certificate as prescribed\nunder the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and hence cannot be enforced. Therefore, the\nCertificate/obtained

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. Y S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, KADAPA

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is\nallowed

172 250 (1) 38 Taxmann 190 (SC), where\nit has held that such evidence would therefore be outside the\npurview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1972. A similar view\nhas been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCommon Cause (A registered Society Vs. UOI (2017) 394 ITR\n220 (SC), where, it has been

RAMAKRISHNA INDUSTRIES ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of TDS. 4. Insofar as the interest on FDR is concerned, learned AR submitted that the only business of the assessee is generation and sale of power. And during the financial year relevant for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee placed certain surplus amounts in FDRs which yielded interest

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

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

4. Next comes the 2nd common issue of corporate guarantee fees “ALP” adjustments of Rs.3,47,45,600/-, Rs.4,25,70,000/-, Rs.5,69,60,000/- and Rs.4,35,40,000/-; assessment year wise; respectively. The assessee interalia submitted before us that a corporate guarantee does not form an international transactions as it does not result in any quantifiable benefits

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

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

4. Next comes the 2nd common issue of corporate guarantee fees “ALP” adjustments of Rs.3,47,45,600/-, Rs.4,25,70,000/-, Rs.5,69,60,000/- and Rs.4,35,40,000/-; assessment year wise; respectively. The assessee interalia submitted before us that a corporate guarantee does not form an international transactions as it does not result in any quantifiable benefits

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

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

4. Next comes the 2nd common issue of corporate guarantee fees “ALP” adjustments of Rs.3,47,45,600/-, Rs.4,25,70,000/-, Rs.5,69,60,000/- and Rs.4,35,40,000/-; assessment year wise; respectively. The assessee interalia submitted before us that a corporate guarantee does not form an international transactions as it does not result in any quantifiable benefits

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

4. Next comes the 2nd common issue of corporate guarantee fees “ALP” adjustments of Rs.3,47,45,600/-, Rs.4,25,70,000/-, Rs.5,69,60,000/- and Rs.4,35,40,000/-; assessment year wise; respectively. The assessee interalia submitted before us that a corporate guarantee does not form an international transactions as it does not result in any quantifiable benefits

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAMSI MOHAN VALLABHANENI, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Vamsi Mohan Vallabhaneni, Tax, R/O.Vijayawada. Central Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Adrpv4231C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmadha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

172. settlement sale of land at 4.7 Though, when specifically asked, Bri. V Vamshi Mohan has denied having received the said amount, but from the evidences found and in light of the sequence of events as narrated above it is quite probable that Sri V Vamshi Mohan, was paid the said amount as mentioned at page 101 of A/MBS/04

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance is justified. Revenue appeal in ITA No. 469/Hyd/2011 is allowed.” 18. The assessee had filed various appeals for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. The said appeals of the assessee were decided by the Tribunal along with the other appeals vide its order dt.28.12.2012. Particulars of various appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue relating to A.Ys