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

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

house, vide a registered sale deed\ndated 23.07.2011 an amount of Rs.90 lac. Apart from that, it was\nobserved by him that the assessee had made payments of Rs.72\nlacs towards the construction/renovation based on an\nunregistered agreement dated 18.04.2008 in respect of the new\nhouse property. Considering the aforesaid facts, the CIT(A)\naccepted the assessee's claim

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

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

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

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

6 months. However, pursuant to the agreement dated 4.4.2007, no work was carried out by the TBP. Further, it was submitted that the period of 4 years have already been lapsed in the year 2011 and it cannot be said that an agreement which was required to be executed and completed within a period of 36 months would continue

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

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

6 months. However, pursuant to the agreement dated 4.4.2007, no work was carried out by the TBP. Further, it was submitted that the period of 4 years have already been lapsed in the year 2011 and it cannot be said that an agreement which was required to be executed and completed within a period of 36 months would continue

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

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

6(7A)(b) of the Income Tax Rules regarding quantification of section 35(2AB) deduction claim stands amended w.e.f. 01.07.2016 only, the assessee’s instant substantive grievance deserves to be accepted in very terms. Ordered accordingly. It is however made clear that the assessing authority shall be very much at liberty to verify the relevant facts in consequential computation

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

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

6(7A)(b) of the Income Tax Rules regarding quantification of section 35(2AB) deduction claim stands amended w.e.f. 01.07.2016 only, the assessee’s instant substantive grievance deserves to be accepted in very terms. Ordered accordingly. It is however made clear that the assessing authority shall be very much at liberty to verify the relevant facts in consequential computation

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

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

6(7A)(b) of the Income Tax Rules regarding quantification of section 35(2AB) deduction claim stands amended w.e.f. 01.07.2016 only, the assessee’s instant substantive grievance deserves to be accepted in very terms. Ordered accordingly. It is however made clear that the assessing authority shall be very much at liberty to verify the relevant facts in consequential computation

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

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

6(7A)(b) of the Income Tax Rules regarding quantification of section 35(2AB) deduction claim stands amended w.e.f. 01.07.2016 only, the assessee’s instant substantive grievance deserves to be accepted in very terms. Ordered accordingly. It is however made clear that the assessing authority shall be very much at liberty to verify the relevant facts in consequential computation

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

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

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

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

6 of 18 ITA Nos 775 and 1116 of 2018 Agro Food Tech Ltd companies rose to 10.83% and since the difference between the PLI of the assessee and the comparable companies consequent to the order u/s 263 is more than +_5%, the TP adjustment was required. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the TPO, in his order

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

6. The relevant portion of the order of assessment in this regard is Extracted hereunder: "During the assessment proceedings, it is observed that the assessee was in receipt of Rs.2,63,90,853/- towards development charges collected by it. But the assessee has shown only 15% of it as its receipts. The assessee has not offered any explanation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

6. The relevant portion of the order of assessment in this regard is Extracted hereunder: "During the assessment proceedings, it is observed that the assessee was in receipt of Rs.2,63,90,853/- towards development charges collected by it. But the assessee has shown only 15% of it as its receipts. The assessee has not offered any explanation