KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted in the facts of this case

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted in the facts of this case

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted in the facts of this case

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

251(1) of the Act, i.e, ".....may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment ...." which, thus, does not compulsorily require the CIT(A) to set aside and refer the assessment in every case where it is made u/s 144 of the Act. 15. We thus, in terms

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

251(1) of the Act, i.e, ".....may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment ...." which, thus, does not compulsorily require the CIT(A) to set aside and refer the assessment in every case where it is made u/s 144 of the Act. 15. We thus, in terms

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of retail trading in ophthalmic lenses, frames, sunglasses and medicines had filed its return of income for the A.Y.2012-13 on 29.09.2012, declaring an income of Rs. Nil under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI vs. POLU VENKATASUBBAIAH, TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not appear and also did 4

271(1)(c), levying penalty on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee against the quantum assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act, was partially allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order No. 5 Polu Venkata Subbaiah ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078342051(1) dated 10.07.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Act, whereby the matter was set aside

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CRICLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged\nin the business of retail trading in ophthalmic lenses, frames,\nsunglasses and medicines had filed its return of income for the\nA.Y.2012-13 on 29.09.2012, declaring an income of Rs. Nil under\nnormal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

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.

u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 20. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find the AO in this case made the additions on the ground that assessee has not incurred any such expenditure till date and could not submit any bills and vouchers

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.

u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 20. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find the AO in this case made the additions on the ground that assessee has not incurred any such expenditure till date and could not submit any bills and vouchers

GOVIND GOUD DADIVELA,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us.

u/s 142(1) of the Act, and had not furnished the documentary evidence which were specifically called for by him to verify the source of the cash deposits of Rs.6.13 crores (supra) made during the subject year in the assessee’s bank account, viz. Trading and Profit and Loss account, Balance Sheet, computation of income, bank statements

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR vs. DADIVELA GOVIND GOUD, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us.

u/s 142(1) of the Act, and had not furnished the documentary evidence which were specifically called for by him to verify the source of the cash deposits of Rs.6.13 crores (supra) made during the subject year in the assessee’s bank account, viz. Trading and Profit and Loss account, Balance Sheet, computation of income, bank statements

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

251(1)(a) of the Act. Expenses pertaining to purchases of computer software as Capital Expenditure: Revised Ground 5. erred in holding that the payment for purchase of software and software maintenance, amounting to Rs. 19,24,31,255 incurred for efficient running of business and claimed as expenses, are actually capital in nature and depreciation should be claimed

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

251 ITR 99 (SC): 5. The CIT(A) erred in relying on judicial precedents inappropriately and failed to apply the binding principles from case laws cited by the appellant, thereby passing an order that is legally untenable. a) The learned CIT(A), in paragraph 5.1.1 of the impugned order, dismissed the appellant's reliance on the legal principle established

AP RAJIV SWAGRUHA CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

u/s. 43B for service tax is unwarranted in the facts of this case.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company had e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.10.2017, admitting a loss of (-) Rs. 21,81,73,812/-. Thereafter, the assessee company filed a revised return on 31.03.2019, disclosing a loss of (-) Rs.3,67,16,356/-. Subsequently

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

u/s 12AA of the Act. In that case, the Hon'ble High\nCourt has held that no doubt, the delay has to be explained with\nproper reasons but it does not mean that every day's delay must\nbe explained. The Court must take a pragmatic view in\nappreciating the reasons attributable to the delay caused to the\nparty

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

251 ITR 873 (Guj.). This Court also in case of Danny Denzongpa v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 81/194 Taxman 415 [2012] 344 ITR 166, has taken a similar view. 33 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 8. However, the Petitioners are faced with the statutory provision contained in sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act. The Petitioners' claim cannot

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

251 ITR 873 (Guj.). This Court also in case of Danny Denzongpa v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 81/194 Taxman 415 [2012] 344 ITR 166, has taken a similar view. 33 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 8. However, the Petitioners are faced with the statutory provision contained in sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act. The Petitioners' claim cannot

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

251 ITR 873 (Guj.). This Court also in case of Danny Denzongpa v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 81/194 Taxman 415 [2012] 344 ITR 166, has taken a similar view. 33 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 8. However, the Petitioners are faced with the statutory provision contained in sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act. The Petitioners' claim cannot