PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order dated 20.12.2006 under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act was adjudicated separately by the Tribunal\nvide order dated 30.11.2015. In that order, the Tribunal directed the Assessing\nOfficer to delete the addition made in respect of offshore contract receipts;\nestimate the income at 10% of the onshore contract works / services receipts;\nand specifically directed not to consider

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order dated 20.12.2006 under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was adjudicated separately by the Tribunal\nvide order dated 30.11.2015. In that order, the Tribunal directed the Assessing\nOfficer to delete the addition made in respect of offshore contract receipts;\nestimate the income at 10% of the onshore contract works / services receipts;\nand specifically directed

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

173 taxmann.com 503, held that, delayed payment of employees' contribution towards PF and ESI deposited after the due date specified under the respective Acts, cannot be allowable, even if such contribution is made before the due date 26 Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made

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 :

173/-. In this regard, the contention of both the parties were examined by us and we are of the opinion that the disallowance made by the revenue authority cannot be more than the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income. For the above said purposes, we may fruitfully rely upon the decision of the Special Bench

VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

reassessment proceedings, the assessee would not have declared its income, since the statutory due date for filing of the return had elapsed. Referring to the conduct of the assessee in the past also, he submitted that the assessee was also a non-filer. The ld.DR drew the attention of the bench to para 7 of the penalty order which reads

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

reassessment proceedings, the assessee would not have declared its income, since the statutory due date for filing of the return had elapsed. Referring to the conduct of the assessee in the past also, he submitted that the assessee was also a non-filer. The ld.DR drew the attention of the bench to para 7 of the penalty order which reads

MEENA JEWELS AND PEARLS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

173 taxmann.com 658 (SC); vi. Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan-HC); vii. Sonia Goel vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi ITA No.703/2017, Dated. 28.08.2017 of Delhi High Court. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that earlier the case of the assessee