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

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

house keeping latitur charges 20 to 26 april13 1,000 Staff Welfare 27-04-2011 Cach tash to be received hom gvg-giftemirso 9,750 Repars & Maintenance-Factory 27-04-2013 Cash water curing daily labour 20 to 26 april33 500 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expennis 27-04-2013 Cash civil work labour charges 20 to 26 april13

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

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

property, interest received on loans advanced, repayment of such loans advanced by M/s Exel Group and its Management in their individual capacity. I would like to further state that amounts mentioned in the table above for different financial years include amounts realized from the debtors to whom either the Group concerns or the individual directors have advanced loans earlier which

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

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

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

house property. 17.9. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the property held by the assessee was a capital asset and continued to be capital asset even after joint development agreement and thus, invoking provisions of section 28(via) is misconceived and against the spirit of law. Further, as per the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill

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

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

houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry

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

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

houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry

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

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

houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry

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

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

houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry

INDUKURI SUNDARI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

section 153A of the Act explained the procedure of assessments, abated assessments and the manner in which the assessment should be framed, which was further supported by circular no.7 of 2003 issued by the CBDT. When the law has explained the position of abated assessments, then the same way the completed assessment should be treated so as to understand that