DR. M. MUNIPRASAD, WARANGAL,HANAMKONDA vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-1, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

house on 22-03-2007 for a consideration of I.T.A. Nos. 1019 & 1020/Hyd/2016 :- 2 -: Rs. 26 Lakhs and offered Short Term Capital Gain, taking the cost of purchase on 17-11-2005 at about Rs. 24 Lakhs. The capital gains offered was Rs. 88,565/- in each case. In the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued

DR. K.VANAJA, WARANGAL,HANAMKONDA vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-1, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

house on 22-03-2007 for a consideration of I.T.A. Nos. 1019 & 1020/Hyd/2016 :- 2 -: Rs. 26 Lakhs and offered Short Term Capital Gain, taking the cost of purchase on 17-11-2005 at about Rs. 24 Lakhs. The capital gains offered was Rs. 88,565/- in each case. In the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

6) did not result in any response from the investor companies, as to the source of the funds invested. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee company failed to produce directors of the investor companies for examination, despite opportunity given. Although, the Assessing Officer has brought out clear facts, but, the Ld.CIT(A) simply deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

6) did not result in any response from the investor companies, as to the source of the funds invested. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee company failed to produce directors of the investor companies for examination, despite opportunity given. Although, the Assessing Officer has brought out clear facts, but, the Ld.CIT(A) simply deleted

ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4),HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

6) did not result in any response from the investor companies, as to the source of the funds invested. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee company failed to produce directors of the investor companies for examination, despite opportunity given. Although, the Assessing Officer has brought out clear facts, but, the Ld.CIT(A) simply deleted

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

6) did not result in any response from the investor companies, as to the source of the funds invested. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee company failed to produce directors of the investor companies for examination, despite opportunity given. Although, the Assessing Officer has brought out clear facts, but, the Ld.CIT(A) simply deleted

KHAIRUNNISA,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Khairunnisa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, R/O.8-5-85, Ward 11(3), Road No.1, Hyderabad. Mallikarjuna Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Pan : Anvpk4801B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sandhya, Advocate, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2024

house bearing MCH No.8-2-602/22, admeasuring 100 Sq.yards situated at Zehra Nagar, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad for a total consideration of Rs.9,11,000/- on 23.06.2008 during the assessment year under consideration. However, the market value of the said property was Rs.32,78,400/-. The Department has noticed that assessee not filed the return of income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

houses with large base of satellite rights in feature films and tele-software and thus have a strong foothold in the TV market. The proportion of advertisement revenue attributable to the programmes produced by UKM & UKTV ranged between 45% to 65% of the total advertisement revenue earned by UEPL's TV network. The balance was contributed by news, current affairs

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SABBINENI SURENDRA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sabbineni Surendra, Income Tax, No. 512/R, Road No.29, Central Circle-2(2), Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqps 3461 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the DVO report, the cost of construction of the above mentioned property was at Rs. 9,93,24,000/-. The value disclosed by the assessee through balance sheet was Rs. 5,44,70,056/- only. The assessee was, therefore asked to show cause as to why the difference