KALPANA ALEXANDER ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-6(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charydr.Kalpana Alexander, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, [Pan No. Achpa5433A] Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

233/- towards income from house property, Rs.29,01,285/- towards income from business and profession and Rs.15,15,191/- towards income from other sources. It was noticed that the assessee did not declare any income towards capital gains, after claiming deduction of Rs.37,27,774/- u/s. 54 of the Act and Rs.47,77,180/- u/s. 54EC

SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shanta Sriram Constructions Vs The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcs4180M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Ramarao Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2022

house property and on account of interest income. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Page 2 of 9 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is in now in appeal before us. 6. In respect to ground No.2, ld.AR

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

properties. Such aspect has been taken care by the provision itself. The executive is required only to supplement the provision by specifying the backward areas by way of notification. Hence, the decision in ITC, Bhadrachalam (supra), has, therefore, no application to the facts of the case. 28. Next case on which the Revenue places heavy reliance is the case

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). 11. The learned CIT-DR Smt. U Mini Chandran, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, whether the expenditure incurred

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). 11. The learned CIT-DR Smt. U Mini Chandran, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, whether the expenditure incurred

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). 11. The learned CIT-DR Smt. U Mini Chandran, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, whether the expenditure incurred

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). 11. The learned CIT-DR Smt. U Mini Chandran, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, whether the expenditure incurred

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). 11. The learned CIT-DR Smt. U Mini Chandran, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, whether the expenditure incurred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

Section 2(13) of the Act. It has not been defined in the Income-tax Act. As far as the dictionary meaning of the word 'adventure' is concerned, it implies a pecuniary risk, a venture, a commercial enterprise. The word 'venture' in its turn is defined as a commercial activity in which there is a risk of loss as well

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustified\nunless the contents are independently proved against the\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025

AFTON CHEMICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

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

property, learned TPO referred to the profit and loss account and found that the intellectual property/rights possessed by the KPL had no bearing on the profit margins. 10. Learned DRP also referred to schedule 17 at Page No. 32 of the annual report of KPL and found that the total revenue from the traded goods, namely, chemicals, polymers and others

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

House, dated 14.10.2010 Commissioner Raghavachari alongwith of Income Tax, Road, Bellary No. of computation of Central Cirlce- shares: income for the 1(3), Bangalore 1020715960 PAN: financial year 2009- AAAC05753D 10 relevant to Ward: DCIT, CC assessment year 1(3), 2010-11 in the case of BLR/DLC/CC/06 M/s Obula Puram 8/03 Mining Co. (P) Ltd. (page 148-149 of Paper

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

House, dated 14.10.2010 Commissioner Raghavachari alongwith of Income Tax, Road, Bellary No. of computation of Central Cirlce- shares: income for the 1(3), Bangalore 1020715960 PAN: financial year 2009- AAAC05753D 10 relevant to Ward: DCIT, CC assessment year 1(3), 2010-11 in the case of BLR/DLC/CC/06 M/s Obula Puram 8/03 Mining Co. (P) Ltd. (page 148-149 of Paper

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

houses and 7 plots in the respective AYs from A.Y 2011-12 to A.Y. 2015-16 were duly shown by the assessee then the correct course would be to tax the turnover for these two years which pertain to AYs.2013-14 and 2014-15 only. At this stage, it is useful to mention that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

houses and 7 plots in the respective AYs from A.Y 2011-12 to A.Y. 2015-16 were duly shown by the assessee then the correct course would be to tax the turnover for these two years which pertain to AYs.2013-14 and 2014-15 only. At this stage, it is useful to mention that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal