EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

150,000 Commissions & Other Mocellaneous Business Expenses 22-04-2013 Cash cash received from raja reddy - scrap-account 1,83,445 24-04-2013 Cash cash received from sal techna tools 2,45,000 Scrap Realization 24-08-2013 Cash cash received from sai techno foolk 26,000 Scrap Realization 26-04-2013 Cash peid to povas sharma-temple Scrap

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

section 132 of the income tax Act 1961/37Aof-the WT Act-1957 in the case of (A) above to search the place of mentioned at (B) above and duly signed and sealed by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Hyderabad to Shri Satendra Sharma (Security incharge) who was present in the said place at the time and after-reading

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

150 13. 10/01/2017 1030 5,00,000 14. 20/01/2017 1041 4,40,000 15. 08/05/2017 138 3,45,000 16. 08/05/2017 039 3,00,000 17 08/05/2017 1182 1,45,429 Total 1,82,19,224 10. The assessee based on the payments made to the builder/seller of the Villa No. 53 (supra), viz. M/s Greenmark Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly

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

housing project subsequent to assessment framed by the AO by filing an application u/s. 264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim

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

housing project subsequent to assessment framed by the AO by filing an application u/s. 264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim

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

house, as an information centre for the members of the association and provide co-operative services in their common benefits". According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee being a National Association of Software Service Companies, it was natural for it to provide such services to its members. He noted that the services also included the following: - • "It provides information

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

150 TTJ 665. For the above stated reasons, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the levy of interest U/s. 201(1) of the Act of Rs. 35,64,418/-. 8. Before us, the Ld. DR made the following submissions: - (i) At the time of the purchase of the property, it was the obligation on the part of the assessee to verify

BOLLINENI KRISHNA KUMARI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

150/- on 22.04.2008 and Rs.1,19,898/- on 30.12.2011 towards LRS charges in respect of properties sold. In the revised computation filed on 18.03.2016 wherein assessee have admitted house property income of Rs.28,532/- from Plot No. 1-31 7/H/232 and 231. Kondapur, Hyderabad which was not admitted in the original return of income. Also assessee have claimed cost

JOSEPH KIRAN KUMAR REDDY BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

1), C/o. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2nd Floor, 8-2-703/VJ/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. PAN : AGCPB8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue by: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.AR. Date of hearing: 29.10.2024 Date of pronouncement: 29.10.2024 2 O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M: This appeal

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name "Manjeera Diamond Towers", near Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name "Manjeera Diamond Towers", near Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name "Manjeera Diamond Towers", near Gopannapally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

SVK PROJECTS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Svk Projects, Hyderabad. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Hyderabad Pan – Abkfs5435Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019 O R D E R

houses would be constructed). Shri DVKR furnished 'katcha' cash-book of the assessee firm along with the details of fund collected. As per the details furnished, the DVKR had received Rs.3,00,50,000/- in cash from various parties in the months of November and December, 2006 and the amounts received by way of cheques to an extent of Rs.58

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case, (supra

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case, (supra

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case, (supra

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case, (supra

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement. for sale with Smt. Jayasree and Sri Vishnu Vardhan dated 29.10.2007, the assessee and the family members registered an Agreement of Sale-Cum-Irrecoverable Power of Attorney (ASClPOA) with M/s. Nell Project Developers Private Limited (NPDPL) on 20.05.2008 for a consideration of Rs.9.20 crores wherein, Smt. Jayasree