ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

142 Taxman 16 (SC) is not on the context of “business of generation, transmission and distribution of the power” but was in the context of production of iron ore and therefore, in that context, the hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue with respect to manufacturing / production of iron ore and our attention was drawn to paras

ANKITJAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our above observation

142 or sub-section (2) of Section\n143 or Section 148 or sub-section (1) of Section 153A or sub-section (2)\nof Section 153C. To sum up, the obligation cast upon an assessee to\ncall in question the jurisdiction of the A.O as per the mandate of sub-\nsection (3) of Section 124 is confined to a case where

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

142. This revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. 10. In the case of the assessee, it had filed a revised return on 30.3.2010 which is before expiry of one year from the relevant assessment year

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

142. This revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. 10. In the case of the assessee, it had filed a revised return on 30.3.2010 which is before expiry of one year from the relevant assessment year

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

142(1) were issued accordingly. The AO completed the assessment by making disallowance of Rs. 13,02,71,498/- towards deduction claimed u/s 32AD of the Act. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company had claimed investment allowance u/s 32AD of Rs. 13,02,71,498/- and sought justification for the same with

ACIT., EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHARMACEUTICALS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Pharmaceuticals Export Of Income Tax, Promotion Council Of India, Exemptions, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcp4643C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rv. Chalam, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

142(1) were issued, to which the assessee responded electronically. The assessee is a society registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, since 09-11-2006, and during scrutiny proceedings, it submitted supporting documents for its receipts and application of income for exemption u/s 11. During the assessment, it was observed that the assessee incurred an expenditure

NEETA GOSWAMI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house property under the court order at Rs. 2.45 crores and claimed deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) to the tune of Rs. 2.11 crores while offering Rs. 34 lakhs as long term capital gains. Learned Assessing Officer, however, recorded that there was no evidence supporting the claim of the assessee

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

142(1) on 10.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.7,80,890/- under the head House Property, Business, Capital Gains and Income from Other Sources. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee produced relevant record and information before the Assessing Authority

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

142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MALAYADRI LAXMI NARASIMHAM MULLAPATI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section. 54F clearly restricts the exemption to sale proceedings of one asset for investment in one residential house. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in allowing the exemption claimed u/s.54F without considering and appreciating the fact that when the nature of two properties are found to be in concrete structure

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

142(1) were issued and sought for furnishing the details of utilization of FCCB proceeds received at Rs.85,23,89,442/- and other details. The assessee’s representatives appeared to furnish the required details. After verifying the information submitted and submissions made, Assessing Officer observed that assessee had invested major amounts in purchase of lands in place of warehouses

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

142(1) were issued and sought for furnishing the details of utilization of FCCB proceeds received at Rs.85,23,89,442/- and other details. The assessee’s representatives appeared to furnish the required details. After verifying the information submitted and submissions made, Assessing Officer observed that assessee had invested major amounts in purchase of lands in place of warehouses

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

142, is furnished after the due date, or is not furnished, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing on the date immediately following the due date, and,— (a) where the return is furnished after the due date, ending

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

142, is furnished after the due date, or is not furnished, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing on the date immediately following the due date, and,— (a) where the return is furnished after the due date, ending

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

142, is furnished after the due date, or is not furnished, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing on the date immediately following the due date, and,— (a) where the return is furnished after the due date, ending

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

142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra

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 :

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

houses were the subject matter of the assessment order or not. To this, he was not able to point out from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had denied the benefit of section 54F on account of the assessee having two residential properties. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that ground no.2 which deals with

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

142). Further, the assesse has declared loss from house property with claim of interest\npayable on borrowed capital of Rs.79,577. Hence, the above mentioned information suggests that\npurchase consideration of Rs.31,50,000 has escaped assessment.\n3.\nCOME TAX DEPARTM\nBased on the above, an opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b)\nof the Income