ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next to PG College. Secunderabad-500 026. PAN : AANFV0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR Date of hearing: 15.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the order passed

TALLURI SRINIVASULU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -1, NELLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Talluri Srinivasulu, Nellore Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nellore. Pan – Aaupt9827G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad Revenue By: Shri Balakrishna Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021

house property income, copy of statements of bank accounts held during the FY 2016-17, copy of client ledger and income tax challans in support of payment. The Books of accounts maintained by the assessee for the AY 2017-18 along with bills and vouchers, are furnished physically in view of its volume and the same are also verified

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

1) of the Act has to be understood in a sense that the building should be of residential nature and "a" should not be understood to indicate a singular number and where an assessee had purchased two residential flats, he is entitled to exemption under section 54 in respect of capital gains on sale of its property on purchase

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

256. 25 Cr as compared to Rs 128.59 Cr in F.Y: 2008-09. The funds for making the investments were clearly drawn from the loans taken from banks and financial institutions on which substantial interest is paid. 3. It is also submitted that during the year, the appellant incurred a long term capital loss of about

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

256. 25 Cr as compared to Rs 128.59 Cr in F.Y: 2008-09. The funds for making the investments were clearly drawn from the loans taken from banks and financial institutions on which substantial interest is paid. 3. It is also submitted that during the year, the appellant incurred a long term capital loss of about

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

256. 25 Cr as compared to Rs 128.59 Cr in F.Y: 2008-09. The funds for making the investments were clearly drawn from the loans taken from banks and financial institutions on which substantial interest is paid. 3. It is also submitted that during the year, the appellant incurred a long term capital loss of about

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

256. 25 Cr as compared to Rs 128.59 Cr in F.Y: 2008-09. The funds for making the investments were clearly drawn from the loans taken from banks and financial institutions on which substantial interest is paid. 3. It is also submitted that during the year, the appellant incurred a long term capital loss of about

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

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

256,628 | 620,000 | 8,247,500 | | | | 25,501,428 |\n| 29th | 5,429,845 | 230,000 | 6,408,269 | 400,599 | 1,000,000 | 3,905,000 | | | 17,403,713 |\n| 30th | 1,345,000 | 25,000 | 1,070,000 | 20,000 | 2,105,000 | | | | 4,560,000 |\n| 31st

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

section 256(1) was pending before the High Court for those years. He also contended that the assessee wanted the reappraisal of the same position which was considered by the Division Bench and also by the Delhi High Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.'s case (supra) and he invited our attention to two decisions of the Madras High Court

NAFEES SULTANA,HYEDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD.

Bench: Us:

Section 25B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows deduction of 30% from arrears of rent received before taxing the same as income under the head "Income from House Property". 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal without condoning the delay thereby depriving the appellant to avail the benefits available

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the\nassessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove\notherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed\nrelevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68\nof the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained\ncash credit only

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

256 ITR 560 held that: “6. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was in error in not condoning the delay and that it was also in error in holding that the additional bonus of three per cent could not be claimed as expenditure under section 37 of the Act. 7. Matters relating to condonation of delay are indeed discretionary

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

256 ITR 560 held that: “6. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was in error in not condoning the delay and that it was also in error in holding that the additional bonus of three per cent could not be claimed as expenditure under section 37 of the Act. 7. Matters relating to condonation of delay are indeed discretionary

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit only

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit only

ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4),HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit only

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2021 To 69/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.70/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zainab Income Tax Investments Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.111/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y: 2018-19) M/S Zainab Investments Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 20/02/2025 Pronouncement:

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit only