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

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 17. The learned DR has also drawn our attention to the findings given by the learned CIT (A) which is mentioned in para 7.2 of the order which reads as under: Page 20 of 34 ITA Nos 508 and others Ascend Telcom Infrastructure

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

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 17. The learned DR has also drawn our attention to the findings given by the learned CIT (A) which is mentioned in para 7.2 of the order which reads as under: Page 20 of 34 ITA Nos 508 and others Ascend Telcom Infrastructure

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

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 17. The learned DR has also drawn our attention to the findings given by the learned CIT (A) which is mentioned in para 7.2 of the order which reads as under: Page 20 of 34 ITA Nos 508 and others Ascend Telcom Infrastructure

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

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for submission of inaccurate particulars of income”. 17. The learned DR has also drawn our attention to the findings given by the learned CIT (A) which is mentioned in para 7.2 of the order which reads as under: Page 20 of 34 ITA Nos 508 and others Ascend Telcom Infrastructure

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.

Penalty proceedings 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

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.

Penalty proceedings 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

ITO WARD-1, NELLORE vs. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY RASAM , NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue i

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 69A of the Act for a sum of Rs.5,74,80,000/- for A.Y. 2013-14. 4 Ramakrishna Reddy Rasam 6. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and before the ld.CIT(A), assessee had filed additional documents for the first time. That the ld.CIT(A) without granting the opportunity of hearing to the Assessing Officer

ITO WARD-1, NELLORE vs. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY RASAM, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue i

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 69A of the Act for a sum of Rs.5,74,80,000/- for A.Y. 2013-14. 4 Ramakrishna Reddy Rasam 6. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and before the ld.CIT(A), assessee had filed additional documents for the first time. That the ld.CIT(A) without granting the opportunity of hearing to the Assessing Officer

ITO WARD-1,, NELLORE vs. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY RASAM, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue i

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 69A of the Act for a sum of Rs.5,74,80,000/- for A.Y. 2013-14. 4 Ramakrishna Reddy Rasam 6. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and before the ld.CIT(A), assessee had filed additional documents for the first time. That the ld.CIT(A) without granting the opportunity of hearing to the Assessing Officer

CURIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(AFTER MERGER AMRI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction/reasons. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and marketing of active pharmaceutical ingredients and other pharmaceutical intermediates. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring loss at Rs.8

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

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

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required