MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

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

Deemed. Dividend. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

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

Deemed. Dividend. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Deemed Dividend.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding\ndebit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact\nloan/advance which attracts the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is\nengaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Deemed Dividend.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding\ndebit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact\nloan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is\nengaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs

RAVINDER RAO TAKKALLAPELLY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

deemed dividend by attributing accumulated profits of Rs.55,37,703 to the shareholder's shareholding percentage was done arbitrarily without substantiating the link between the loan and the distribution of profits. And without looking in to the facts of profits, arbitrarily profits was arrived as Rs.55,37,703. And further there is clear arithmetical error in calculation. The AO Considered

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

deemed dividend” u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act of Rs.9,00,010/- assessed the income in the name of the assessee, viz., Shri Rajasekhar Chelikani at the same amount. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee, in the course of proceedings before the CIT(A), had, inter alia, claimed that

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

deemed dividend” of Rs. 4,05,95,758/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,52,84,998/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessment order was assailed in appeal before the CIT(A). It was, inter alia, claimed by the legal heirs of the assessee (since deceased) before the CIT(A) that

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

deemed dividend” of Rs. 4,05,95,758/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,52,84,998/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessment order was assailed in appeal before the CIT(A). It was, inter alia, claimed by the legal heirs of the assessee (since deceased) before the CIT(A) that

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRLCE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

deemed dividend” of Rs. 4,05,95,758/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,52,84,998/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessment order was assailed in appeal before the CIT(A). It was, inter alia, claimed by the legal heirs of the assessee (since deceased) before the CIT(A) that

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

deemed dividend” of Rs. 4,05,95,758/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,52,84,998/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessment order was assailed in appeal before the CIT(A). It was, inter alia, claimed by the legal heirs of the assessee (since deceased) before the CIT(A) that

RAMA DEVI TUMMALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

deemed dividend. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the payments were made for legitimate business expenses of the company, not as loans or advances. 4. The PCIT's findings that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue are arbitrary, perverse, and based on mere conjectures and surmises. The original assessment was completed after

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

deemed dividend u/s 6 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961 will attracts. Therefore, this aspect needs thorough examination. viii) Further it is noticed from the tax audit report that certain discrepancies pointed out in para no.5(a), to (i) of the Auditor’s report, Para Nos (iii)(a) & (b) and ix(a) of annexure to Auditor’s report

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. After considering 29 B. Ramalinga Raju the assessee’s submissions, the CIT(C) passed an order u/s 263 on 08.03.2012, setting aside the reassessment order and directing an examination of the Rs. 397 crore ADS proceeds and the Rs. 1122.00 crore opening balance. A notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30.03.2012 and served

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. After considering 29 B. Ramalinga Raju the assessee’s submissions, the CIT(C) passed an order u/s 263 on 08.03.2012, setting aside the reassessment order and directing an examination of the Rs. 397 crore ADS proceeds and the Rs. 1122.00 crore opening balance. A notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30.03.2012 and served

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

dividend distribution tax. 15 ITA.No.1187/Hyd/2018 16. what is also noticeable is that the entire or whole expenditure has been disallowed as if there was no expenditure incurred by the respondent-assessee for conducting business. The CIT(A) has positively held that the business was set up and had commenced. The said finding is accepted. The respondent-assessee, therefore

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1)), HYDERABAD ,, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

dividend by private companies are subject to tax in the hands of shareholders and hence section14A should not be invoked as income is not exempt from tax and forms part of total income. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that AO erred in disallowing the depreciation claimed on life fitness use XB of Rs.48

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

dividend by private companies are subject to tax in the hands of shareholders and hence section14A should not be invoked as income is not exempt from tax and forms part of total income. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that AO erred in disallowing the depreciation claimed on life fitness use XB of Rs.48

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1)), HYDERABAD ,, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

dividend by private companies are subject to tax in the hands of shareholders and hence section14A should not be invoked as income is not exempt from tax and forms part of total income. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that AO erred in disallowing the depreciation claimed on life fitness use XB of Rs.48