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

section 13(1)(c) r.w.s.13(2)(c) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer after considering relevant provisions of the Act and also applying provisions of sec.40A(2)(a) observed that, appellant society has made excessive and unreasonable payment to the above two companies for rendering services which cannot be allowed as deduction. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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

disallowance of the claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of the Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs. 1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

disallowance of the claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of the Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs. 1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

disallowed the same.\n5. Ostensibly, the assessee during the course of the assessment\nproceedings came up with a new claim, wherein based on a revised\nstatement of computation of income that was filed with the A.O.\non 29.08.2010, it was claimed by him that as the agricultural land\nsituated at Village: Manchirevula was not a “capital asset” within\nthe meaning

SHRI RAMPRIYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

2) of section 256.” In Bengal Enamel. Works Ltd. v. CIT/1970) 77 ITR 119, the .Supreme ,Court considered remuneration paid by the assessee to a technical adviser and taking into consideration that the taxing authorities had uniformly found that the remuneration agreed to be paid was influenced by “extra commercial considerations”, it being much in excess of what was normally

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

disallowed the claim of the assessee to\nthe extent of Rs.7,50,000/- as cost incurred for transfer.\n.xxxx.\n6. This brings us to the other question whether the assessee had\n\"purchased\" the second property and, therefore, payment made of\nRs.37,86,273/- was entitled to exemption under Section 54 of the\nAct. Section

SHARE MICROFIN LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

2(24)(xviii) is wrong and bad in law and to be deleted. 4. That the provisions of section 28(iv) are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the assessee case, as there is no benefit or perquisite arising to the assessee hence the addition made invoking Section 28(iv) is wrong

SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

2 to section 263 has given power to the PCIT to revise the assessment order, if the PCIT satisfies that the order is passed without making enquiries or verification, which should have been made, but such conclusion can be drawn only on the basis of reasons given by the Ld.PCIT, to prove that because of erroneous order passed

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

2(43), the word 'any' used before it will be otiose and the further qualification as to the nature of levy will also become meaningless. Furthermore, the word 'tax' as defined in s. 2(43) of the Act is subject to "unless the context otherwise requires". In view of the discussion above we hold that the word 'any' tax herein

TMI E2E ACADEMY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Tmi E2E Academy Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadct 7103 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. Maruthi Raghuram Revenue By: Smt. N. Swapna Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) – 2, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 28/06/2018 For Ay 2014-15 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”, As Stated In Grounds Of Appeal.

256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : “1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 43B by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1984, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing that the outstanding liability of sales tax, professional

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the Assessee. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act is given the right to forego the advantage when required to wield it in a manner it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law" in other permissible manners as laid

VAMSEE KRISHNA KUNDURTHI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2014-15

2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Moreover, the assessee has neither produced any bank account outside India to prove any credits received outside India nor any mode of receiving the receipts outside India. Further the assessee has also failed to prove the receipts that are reflecting in Form -16 are the salary receipts earned outside India within the purview

RANJITH KUMAR VUPPU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-II, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the total income of any previous year of a person who was a non-resident included all income from whatever sources derived, which was received or deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person or accrue or arises to him in India during such year. Hence

VISHANJI KHIMJI KARANI,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Vishanji Khimji Karani, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-4(1), Pan: Abxpk 8486 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Laxmi Vishanji Karani, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-4(1), Pan: Aelpk 9940 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Sri S. Murali Mohan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2020

disallowed the claim of set off of loss from trading in shares amounting to Rs. 4,54,863 and Rs. 1,21,806/- in the hands of Dr. Vishanji Khimji Karani and Dr. Laxmi Viishanji Karani respectively by holding that the loss in the case of the assessees is arising from speculation business. 5. Before the Ld. AO both

LAXMI VISHANJI KARANI, ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Vishanji Khimji Karani, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-4(1), Pan: Abxpk 8486 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Laxmi Vishanji Karani, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-4(1), Pan: Aelpk 9940 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Sri S. Murali Mohan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2020

disallowed the claim of set off of loss from trading in shares amounting to Rs. 4,54,863 and Rs. 1,21,806/- in the hands of Dr. Vishanji Khimji Karani and Dr. Laxmi Viishanji Karani respectively by holding that the loss in the case of the assessees is arising from speculation business. 5. Before the Ld. AO both

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

section 40A. Instead of rejecting the turnover, he proceeded to disallow only the associated financial cost. He disallowed the interest cost in proportion to the purchases with related and unrelated parties. 17.2 However, DRP remitted this issue of disallowance of interest back to the AO to recalculate the interest properly and by following cash flow on day to day basis

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolution Panel

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolution Panel

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolution Panel