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

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

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

house, maintenance charges collection, the maintenance of the project by the developer, the, contribution to corpus fund etc (from paragraphs 2 to 18 of the agreement). The only point of the no objection comes in para 1 where the second party (earlier developer assigned its rights). When land owners and the developer are coming up with new terms, saying this

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA KAZA, , PEDAGONNURU

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

house, maintenance charges collection, the maintenance of the project by the developer, the, contribution to corpus fund etc (from paragraphs 2 to 18 of the agreement). The only point of the no objection comes in para 1 where the second party (earlier developer assigned its rights). When land owners and the developer are coming up with new terms, saying this

SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

house bearing Municipal No.17-1- 336/1/29, Plot No.29, situated at S.N. Reddy Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad for a total sole consideration of Rs.43,50,000/- vide Sale deed No 4535/2016, dated 12.09.2016. During this transaction, the vendor accepted Rs.43,50,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which attracts penalty u/s.271D. Section

PAYAL JINDAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

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

house property, bearing Municipal No.5-1-153/3, admeasuring 93.33 Sq. Yds., for a consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs, vide document :- 2 -: ITA. Nos. 56 & 57/Hyd/2019 No.1560/2009, dt.04-07-2009. Thus, the total sale consideration as per two sale deeds was Rs.30 Lakhs, whereas the SRD value of the property was Rs.52,92,480/-. Since the assessees did not offer the capital gains

RAJKUMAR JINDAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

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

house property, bearing Municipal No.5-1-153/3, admeasuring 93.33 Sq. Yds., for a consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs, vide document :- 2 -: ITA. Nos. 56 & 57/Hyd/2019 No.1560/2009, dt.04-07-2009. Thus, the total sale consideration as per two sale deeds was Rs.30 Lakhs, whereas the SRD value of the property was Rs.52,92,480/-. Since the assessees did not offer the capital gains

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

VIATON ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

253 and Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. 91 ITR 170. 7. Learned CIT(A) elaborately considered the submissions on all these aspects. He considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Bokaro Steel Ltd., (supra), Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemicals

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

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

253 (SC) Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Vs. CIT is that the lower authorities have rightly treated the impugned sum as a revenue item assessable to tax. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments as the tribunal’s latest decision DCIT Vs. M/s. Ankit Metal and Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 92 ITR 189 (Trib) (Kal) holds the very

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

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

253 (SC) Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Vs. CIT is that the lower authorities have rightly treated the impugned sum as a revenue item assessable to tax. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments as the tribunal’s latest decision DCIT Vs. M/s. Ankit Metal and Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 92 ITR 189 (Trib) (Kal) holds the very

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

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

253 (SC) Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Vs. CIT is that the lower authorities have rightly treated the impugned sum as a revenue item assessable to tax. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments as the tribunal’s latest decision DCIT Vs. M/s. Ankit Metal and Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 92 ITR 189 (Trib) (Kal) holds the very

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

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

253 (SC) Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Vs. CIT is that the lower authorities have rightly treated the impugned sum as a revenue item assessable to tax. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments as the tribunal’s latest decision DCIT Vs. M/s. Ankit Metal and Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 92 ITR 189 (Trib) (Kal) holds the very

AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED., SEC'BAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

253(1)(d) of the Act. The directions of the DRP u/s 144(5) of the Act, are not appealable before the ITAT. Under those circumstances, in our view, the directions of the DRP, which is a higher authority cannot be said to have merged with the order of the Assessing Officer, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

3. The important point to note is that all the incentives are production incentives in the sense that the company will be CO No. 23/H/2018 Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyd. entitled to these incentives only after it goes into production. The scheme was not to make any payment directly or indirectly for setting up of the industries

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

3. The important point to note is that all the incentives are production incentives in the sense that the company will be CO No. 23/H/2018 Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyd. entitled to these incentives only after it goes into production. The scheme was not to make any payment directly or indirectly for setting up of the industries

IDEA CELLULAR LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, WARD-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Housing (253 ITR 310) (Guj), 2) Further, the Assessee submits that, in the case of recipients of taxes who have claimed refund of taxes paid by them or who have filed loss return of income, there is no justification for charging of interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act as the interest is to compensate the revenue for the loss

IDEA CELLULAR LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, WARD-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Housing (253 ITR 310) (Guj), 2) Further, the Assessee submits that, in the case of recipients of taxes who have claimed refund of taxes paid by them or who have filed loss return of income, there is no justification for charging of interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act as the interest is to compensate the revenue for the loss