SRINI PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 274 read with sec,271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer had also levied penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, there is no merit in the ground taken by the assessee company and thus, rejected. 8 ITA.No.1121/Hyd./2025 9. In so far as levy of penalty u/sec.271

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. " 11.8 In the case of Holcin India (P) Ltd. (supra) the facts were that the respondent- assessee was a subsidiary of Holderind Investments Ltd., Mauritius, which was formed as a holding company for 'making downstream investments in cement manufacturing ventures in India. In the return of income filed for the Assessment Year

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowed U/s.40A(3) and is added to the total income of the assessee. 14.1 On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue at pages 70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely unsubstantiated and no confirmation

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

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

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

In the result, three appeals i

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

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

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

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

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. INCREDIBLE INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

274 r.w.s.270A/271AAB of the Act. Thus, we set aside the\norders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for both the assessment years and\nrestore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and also direct the Ld.\nCIT(A) to decide the preliminary issue raised by the assessee by\nway of application under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

disallowance of the deduction claimed by the Appellant under section 80IA in respect of profits derived from the eligible business of developing infrastructure facility. He ought to have appreciated that, tested on the principles laid down by the judicial authorities, the appellant company was the developer of infrastructure facility, as defined in Explanation to Section 80IA(4)(i). and accordingly

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

274 of 2008) is in favour of the assessee. Hence the modification proposed by the AO does not amount to mistake apparent from record for the purpose of application of section 154 of the Act. In this regard we rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases including the following: a) In the case of MEPCO

NTT DATA BUSINESS SOLUTIOS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowing the relief claimed by the Appellant of INR 31,48,038 towards foreign tax credits under section 90/91 of the Act, without considering assessee's submission and documentary evidence. 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in disregarding Assessee's claim for additional relief

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

Bench: Us:

disallowance of INR 13,13,770 pertaining to leave encashment expenses claimed by the Appellant under section 43B of the Act 3.1 The learned AO has erred in not granting a deduction of INR 13,13,770/- /s.43B of the Act 3.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. IL & FS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LIMITED , HYDERABAD

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) at\nRs.3,99,29,316/- erred in giving a direction to verify and allow the\nclaim instead of deleting the entire amount on the basis of evidence\nto support its expenditure.\n4. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time\nof hearing.\nThe brief facts of the case are that

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO UBER INDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowed 13. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred, and Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the learned TPO in not allowing the risk adjustment in accordance with the Rules to account for difference between the risk profile of the Appellant and that of alleged comparable companies

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,,SIRICILLA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

274/-. The return of income filed by the assessee Co-operative Society was initially processed as such under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O., taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee Co-operative Society had failed to deposit the employees’ share of contributions towards various welfare funds within the prescribed time period, which thus, rendered

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

274/-. The return of income filed by the assessee Co-operative Society was initially processed as such under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O., taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee Co-operative Society had failed to deposit the employees’ share of contributions towards various welfare funds within the prescribed time period, which thus, rendered

SHAVVA SUDHEER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." Page 3 of 17 ITA 402 of 2022 Shavva Sudheer Reddy 7. The AO, in our view, shall not be carried away

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F insofar the same pertained to the short-term capital gains of 5 Gaddam Mohan Reddy vs. ITO Rs.16,29,727/-. The AO while culminating the assessment, inter alia, initiated penalty proceedings under section 274