MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

2) was issued on 26.08.2011 and the notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name "Manjeera Diamond Towers

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

2) was issued on 26.08.2011 and the notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name "Manjeera Diamond Towers

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

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

374 2,51,95,170 10,79,80,544 12 2022 (Till 31.12.2022) 5,22,24,341 1,12,66,627 6,34,90,968 Arivkumar 06/01/22 45,02,30,310 51,66,36,659 2,51,76,51,3151240661 ए. टी. वी. कमार, भारा से. KA TV. KUMAR. IR S. 12 6/1/2025 As stated earlier, these unaccounted cash transactions

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

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

374 2,51,95,170 10,79,80,544 12 2022 (Till 31.12.2022) 5,22,24,341 1,12,66,627 6,34,90,968 45,02,30,310 51,66,36,659 2,51,76,51,3151240661 Arivkumar 06/01/22 ए. टी. वी. कमार, भारा से. KA TV. KUMAR. IR S. 8. 6/1/2025 As stated earlier, these unaccounted cash transactions

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

2) was issued on 26.08.2011 and the notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name “Manjeera Diamond Towers

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

2) was issued on 26.08.2011 and the notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name “Manjeera Diamond Towers

MANJEERA PROJECTS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

2) was issued on 26.08.2011 and the notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 25.10.2012. In response to the above notices, the representative of the assessee appeared and furnished the details called for. After verification of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has undertaken construction of a housing project by name “Manjeera Diamond Towers

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

374 ITR 645] it was held that if there was no incriminating material found during the search then the Tribunal was right in holding that the power u/s. 153A being not expected to be exercised routinely, should be exercised if the search revealed any incriminating material and if that was not found then there was no warrant for making

INDUKURI SYAM PRASAD REDDY, 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

374 ITR 645] it was held that if there was no incriminating material found during the search then the Tribunal was right in holding that the power u/s. 153A being not expected to be exercised routinely, should be exercised if the search revealed any incriminating material and if that was not found then there was no warrant for making

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

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

property of Indian Railways and the Government of India by default and any development 'with regard to the Railway Infrastructure cannot be done without the approval of the Indian Railways. Thus by default all the development of infrastructure has to have an explicit approval of the Indian Railways as per the above OM. Coming back to the decision

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

property of Indian Railways and the Government of India by default and any development 'with regard to the Railway Infrastructure cannot be done without the approval of the Indian Railways. Thus by default all the development of infrastructure has to have an explicit approval of the Indian Railways as per the above OM. Coming back to the decision