GEETHIKA ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is\nconsequential and accordingly, set aside to the record of the\nAssessing Officer for fresh adjudication, if need arises.\n\n10.\nIn the result, both the appeals by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes.\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 10th January, 2025.\nSd/-\n(MANJUNATHA, G)\nACCOUNΤΑΝΤ ΜΕMBER

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. GAIAN SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

Penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c ) appeal is being preferred under section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the Grounds of Appeal separately enclosed. During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant submitted the following written submission as under: "With respect to the above cited subject, we hereby submit you following information

ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 69C of the Act primarily on an assumption that the Assessing Officer had treated the assessee’s expenditure claim as “unexplained” whereas we note the corresponding assessment discussion in para 3 page 13 of the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 had treated as not “a genuine expenditure only”. The Assessing Officer appears to have noted from a perusal of the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 69C of the Act primarily on an assumption that the Assessing Officer had treated the assessee’s expenditure claim as “unexplained” whereas we note the corresponding assessment discussion in para 3 page 13 of the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 had treated as not “a genuine expenditure only”. The Assessing Officer appears to have noted from a perusal of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 69C of the Act primarily on an assumption that the Assessing Officer had treated the assessee’s expenditure claim as “unexplained” whereas we note the corresponding assessment discussion in para 3 page 13 of the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 had treated as not “a genuine expenditure only”. The Assessing Officer appears to have noted from a perusal of the assessee

SPECTRA EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

u/s 115BBE was 30%+3% Cess as on first day of the Previous-Year i.e. 01.04.2016, therefore the tax-rate of 30%+3% Cess shall apply to the present case and not the higher rate, hence the assessment-order does not cause prejudice to the interest of revenue. The reason of projecting such a claim by assessee is that