ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

carry forward and set off of losses and pass appropriate assessment orders and re-compute book profits accordingly. The present assessment orders under appeal were passed in consequence of above referred 263 order. 9.1 During the reassessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, HYERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

carry forward and set off of losses and pass appropriate assessment orders and re-compute book profits accordingly. The present assessment orders under appeal were passed in consequence of above referred 263 order. 9.1 During the reassessment

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

carry forward and set off of losses and pass appropriate assessment orders and re-compute book profits accordingly. The present assessment orders under appeal were passed in consequence of above referred 263 order. 9.1 During the reassessment

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

carry forward of losses by filing a revised return of income. 22) Supreme Court held that S. 1 OB (8) of the Act requires exercise of the option within the period prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and such time limit is mandatory. The relevant extract of the Supreme Court decision is also reproduced below; “9. Therefore, claiming benefit

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

carry forward of losses by filing a revised return of income. 22) Supreme Court held that S. 1 OB (8) of the Act requires exercise of the option within the period prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and such time limit is mandatory. The relevant extract of the Supreme Court decision is also reproduced below; “9. Therefore, claiming benefit

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

loss to be carried forward in A.Y 2006-07, the learned CIT invoked the provisions of section 263. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: “The non obstante clause at the beginning of Section 153A (1) of the Act suspends, for the purpose and to the extent as indicated in such provision, the operation

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

loss to be carried forward in A.Y 2006-07, the learned CIT invoked the provisions of section 263. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: “The non obstante clause at the beginning of Section 153A (1) of the Act suspends, for the purpose and to the extent as indicated in such provision, the operation

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

loss to be carried forward in A.Y 2006-07, the learned CIT invoked the provisions of section 263. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: “The non obstante clause at the beginning of Section 153A (1) of the Act suspends, for the purpose and to the extent as indicated in such provision, the operation

M/S. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in Section 115J that "income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer ................... " 10. The said decision came up for consideration, although in the different context as regards the working out of the depreciation in the decision in Malayala Manorama Co. (supra)., the Apex court upheld the contention

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATHI vs. M/S. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED,, TIRUPATHI

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in Section 115J that "income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer ................... " 10. The said decision came up for consideration, although in the different context as regards the working out of the depreciation in the decision in Malayala Manorama Co. (supra)., the Apex court upheld the contention

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

forward loss of Rs. 27,58,236/-. 5. The AO observed that the information available on record revealed that the assessee company had contractual receipts of Rs. 3,20,42,152/- on which tax was deducted at source (TDS) under section 194C of the Act. As the assessee company had failed to come forth with any details regarding the subject

VANASOWRABHA ASSOCIATES,WARANGAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G

loss determine in pursuance of such a return could be denied to be carried forward and set off? The department's contention is that recourse to section 148 is a remedy available to the department to assess or reassess

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

carry forward of loss of Rs. 3,35,01,000/-. Since the additions made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash credits have already been deleted while adjudicating grounds nos. 15 to 18, the returned loss as claimed by the assessee stands restored. Accordingly, this ground becomes consequential and does not require any separate adjudication. 58. In the result

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

carry forward of loss of Rs. 3,35,01,000/-. Since the additions made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash credits have already been deleted while adjudicating grounds nos. 15 to 18, the returned loss as claimed by the assessee stands restored. Accordingly, this ground becomes consequential and does not require any separate adjudication. 58. In the result

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

carry forward of loss of Rs. 3,35,01,000/-. Since the additions made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash credits have already been deleted while adjudicating grounds nos. 15 to 18, the returned loss as claimed by the assessee stands restored. Accordingly, this ground becomes consequential and does not require any separate adjudication. 58. In the result

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.67,85,773/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.67,85,773/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.67,85,773/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business