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

house. Once an assessee falls within the ambit of a beneficial provision , then the said provision should be liberally interpreted. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE V.Favourite Industries (2012) 16 GSTR 184(SC); (2012) 7 SCC 153 has succinctly observed thus (page 191 of 16 GSTR)" At page-575 "It is now a well-established principle

RAIL ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ORISSA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house rent expenses of Rs.9,88,987/- debited under the head 'Traveling expenses' and by disallowing claim of expenditure of Rs.12,83,810/- being expenses not related to the heads under which they were claimed. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 491 & 492/Hyd/2021 Rail Road Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before

RAIL ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ORISSA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house rent expenses of Rs.9,88,987/- debited under the head 'Traveling expenses' and by disallowing claim of expenditure of Rs.12,83,810/- being expenses not related to the heads under which they were claimed. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 491 & 492/Hyd/2021 Rail Road Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

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

153 …………”. The same sufficiently suggests that once Section 139 itself is not applicable in an instance involving Section 153A proceedings, all other consequences flowing therefrom in case of an assessee having not claimed Section 80- IA deduction in section 139(1) return are deemed to have been rendered non-operative. Coupled with this, hon'ble jurisdictional high court in Gopal

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

153 …………”. The same sufficiently suggests that once Section 139 itself is not applicable in an instance involving Section 153A proceedings, all other consequences flowing therefrom in case of an assessee having not claimed Section 80- IA deduction in section 139(1) return are deemed to have been rendered non-operative. Coupled with this, hon'ble jurisdictional high court in Gopal

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

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

153 …………”. The same sufficiently suggests that once Section 139 itself is not applicable in an instance involving Section 153A proceedings, all other consequences flowing therefrom in case of an assessee having not claimed Section 80- IA deduction in section 139(1) return are deemed to have been rendered non-operative. Coupled with this, hon'ble jurisdictional high court in Gopal

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

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

153 …………”. The same sufficiently suggests that once Section 139 itself is not applicable in an instance involving Section 153A proceedings, all other consequences flowing therefrom in case of an assessee having not claimed Section 80- IA deduction in section 139(1) return are deemed to have been rendered non-operative. Coupled with this, hon'ble jurisdictional high court in Gopal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. COASTAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

153 :- 8 -: ITA No.. 497/Hyd/2019 and CO 16/H/2019 Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. (iii) 5abharwal properties industries (P) Ltd -382 ITR 547 (Del) (iv) AV TEe Ltd -395 ITR 434 (Del) 7.5 The earned PClT, Central has mechanically and without application of mind has approved the proposal of AO to reopen the assessment. The reasons recorded, as furnished

KAMLESH RANKA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXATION-II, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Kamlesh Ranka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Intl. Taxation-Ii, Pan: Acbpr 3953 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D. Satyanarayana Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2019

House Property U/s. 54 of the Act Rs. 1,03,36,000) 5. Thereafter, the Ld. AO after examining the case of the assessee computed the LTCG of the assessee by adopting the assessee’s share of cost of construction at Rs. 6,89,557/-, invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act and disallowing the investment made subsequent

GIRISH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals