PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

124) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER vide 1993 (046) ITD-0236-THYD dated 12.04.1993 where in it was held that “in case of a building contractor, the revenue need not wait till the completion of the tract and the reasonable profit can be estimated from year to year and brought to tax. The -estimate of profit at 4% reasonable

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

124) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER vide 1993 (046) ITD-0236-THYD dated 12.04.1993 where in it was held that “in case of a building contractor, the revenue need not wait till the completion of the tract and the reasonable profit can be estimated from year to year and brought to tax. The -estimate of profit at 4% reasonable

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

124) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER vide 1993 (046) ITD-0236-THYD dated 12.04.1993 where in it was held that “in case of a building contractor, the revenue need not wait till the completion of the tract and the reasonable profit can be estimated from year to year and brought to tax. The -estimate of profit at 4% reasonable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. This ground is held to be raised prematurely and hence not adjudicated separately. 6. Ground No.1 of the assessee relates to addition of provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs.11,29,70,000/- in computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The brief facts with regard to this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

124) at Rs. 5,32,851/-, Interest Payable to SBI(1204) at Rs. 9,16,763/- & Other Expenditure Payable at Rs.75,45,386/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee failed to substantiate the same with relevant documentary evidences. 6. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that Depreciation claimed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

124) at Rs. 5,32,851/-, Interest Payable to SBI(1204) at Rs. 9,16,763/- & Other Expenditure Payable at Rs.75,45,386/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee failed to substantiate the same with relevant documentary evidences. 6. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that Depreciation claimed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

124) at Rs. 5,32,851/-, Interest Payable to SBI(1204) at Rs. 9,16,763/- & Other Expenditure Payable at Rs.75,45,386/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee failed to substantiate the same with relevant documentary evidences. 6. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that Depreciation claimed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

124) at Rs. 5,32,851/-, Interest Payable to SBI(1204) at Rs. 9,16,763/- & Other Expenditure Payable at Rs.75,45,386/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee failed to substantiate the same with relevant documentary evidences. 6. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that Depreciation claimed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

124) at Rs. 5,32,851/-, Interest Payable to SBI(1204) at Rs. 9,16,763/- & Other Expenditure Payable at Rs.75,45,386/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee failed to substantiate the same with relevant documentary evidences. 6. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that Depreciation claimed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

124) at Rs. 5,32,851/-, Interest Payable to SBI(1204) at Rs. 9,16,763/- & Other Expenditure Payable at Rs.75,45,386/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee failed to substantiate the same with relevant documentary evidences. 6. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that Depreciation claimed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

124) at Rs. 5,32,851/-, Interest Payable to SBI(1204) at Rs. 9,16,763/- & Other Expenditure Payable at Rs.75,45,386/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee failed to substantiate the same with relevant documentary evidences. 6. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that Depreciation claimed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

124/- towards Operating & Maintenance expenses, when the Assessing Officer has clearly mentioned in the assessment order that during the search and post-search enquiries the appellant failed to furnish all the bills/vouchers, hence a detailed show cause notice was issued to the assessee company wherein all the facts relating to the bogus/accommodation entries of purchase bills/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses with

ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

124/- towards Operating & Maintenance expenses, when the Assessing Officer has clearly mentioned in the assessment order that during the search and post-search enquiries the appellant failed to furnish all the bills/vouchers, hence a detailed show cause notice was issued to the assessee company wherein all the facts relating to the bogus/accommodation entries of purchase bills/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses with

KONATHAM KOTIREDDY,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Konatham Kotireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Atupk6883E Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By: Shri Vamseedhar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr)

271 B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in ignoring the impeccable documentary evidence filed a letter from the Principal Page 1 of 7 ITA 245 of 2023 Konatham Kotireddy Dealer viz. M/s. Anika Bajaj

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), 271AA and 271BA of the Income Tax Act. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee also raised the additional grounds on 19.11.2019 which read as under : “6. The Ld. AO/DRP