PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

255 (SC)/2003 11 Supreme Court Cases 441, dealing with an issue of not following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, held at paragraph No.9 as under: "9. Apart from the language of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, if we were to accept the submission of the appellant that the Revenue Authorities within the State could refuse

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

4 Rashid Hussain vs. ACIT 16/01/2025 declaring an income of Rs.19,20,130/-. As the return of income filed by the assessee in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was beyond the stipulated period of 92 days as was provided in the said notice, therefore, the AO while framing the assessment observed that the same

ANKIT JAIN,HYDERABAD. vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Us:

255 (SC)/2003 11 Supreme Court Cases 441, dealing with an issue of not following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, held at paragraph No.9 as under: "9. Apart from the language of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, if we were to accept the submission of the appellant that the Revenue Authorities within the State could refuse

ANKIT JAIN, HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Us:

255 (SC)/2003 11 Supreme Court Cases 441, dealing with an issue of not following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, held at paragraph No.9 as under: "9. Apart from the language of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, if we were to accept the submission of the appellant that the Revenue Authorities within the State could refuse

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED, R.R. DIST, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

255(6) of the Act read with section 131 of the IT Act. 12.10 Moreover, there is no bar in law for the Tribunal to examine the documents/ statements came to it notice either itself or directing the lower authority to examine it. Further the Nuziveedu seeds Ltd., RR dist. assessment or reassessment in respect of any of the assessment

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED,R.R.DIST. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

255(6) of the Act read with section 131 of the IT Act. 12.10 Moreover, there is no bar in law for the Tribunal to examine the documents/ statements came to it notice either itself or directing the lower authority to examine it. Further the Nuziveedu seeds Ltd., RR dist. assessment or reassessment in respect of any of the assessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED, R.R. DIST, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

255(6) of the Act read with section 131 of the IT Act. 12.10 Moreover, there is no bar in law for the Tribunal to examine the documents/ statements came to it notice either itself or directing the lower authority to examine it. Further the Nuziveedu seeds Ltd., RR dist. assessment or reassessment in respect of any of the assessment

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED,R.R.DIST. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

255(6) of the Act read with section 131 of the IT Act. 12.10 Moreover, there is no bar in law for the Tribunal to examine the documents/ statements came to it notice either itself or directing the lower authority to examine it. Further the Nuziveedu seeds Ltd., RR dist. assessment or reassessment in respect of any of the assessment

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

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

HARI KRISHNA LEELA PRASAD PALADUGU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

255 ITR 258) and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd. (301 ITR 328). 3. The A.O., after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the fact that, the assessee has violated provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, and more particularly

DEEPA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

4) of the Act, in such a statement, only Mr. Narendra Kumar Agarwal agreed to withdraw the claim under section 10(38) of the Act that too on 14/06/2018 with a qualification that though he reiterates that the long term capital gains was duly disclosed in the IT return and the exemption under section

NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ष अपीलार्थीर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / Ita No. / A.Y. Appellant Respondent Narender Kumar Gupta, Assistant 45/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aezpg9653A] Income Tax, 46/Hyd/2022 2013-14 Central Circle-3(1), Virender Kumar Gupta, Hyderabad 47/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad [Pan: Aaspg1887D]

4) of the Act, in such a statement, only Mr. Narendra Kumar Agarwal agreed to withdraw the claim under section 10(38) of the Act that too on 14/06/2018 with a qualification that though he reiterates that the long term capital gains was duly disclosed in the IT return and the exemption under section

NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ष अपीलार्थीर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / Ita No. / A.Y. Appellant Respondent Narender Kumar Gupta, Assistant 45/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aezpg9653A] Income Tax, 46/Hyd/2022 2013-14 Central Circle-3(1), Virender Kumar Gupta, Hyderabad 47/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad [Pan: Aaspg1887D]

4) of the Act, in such a statement, only Mr. Narendra Kumar Agarwal agreed to withdraw the claim under section 10(38) of the Act that too on 14/06/2018 with a qualification that though he reiterates that the long term capital gains was duly disclosed in the IT return and the exemption under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD vs. VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ष अपीलार्थीर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / Ita No. / A.Y. Appellant Respondent Narender Kumar Gupta, Assistant 45/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aezpg9653A] Income Tax, 46/Hyd/2022 2013-14 Central Circle-3(1), Virender Kumar Gupta, Hyderabad 47/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad [Pan: Aaspg1887D]

4) of the Act, in such a statement, only Mr. Narendra Kumar Agarwal agreed to withdraw the claim under section 10(38) of the Act that too on 14/06/2018 with a qualification that though he reiterates that the long term capital gains was duly disclosed in the IT return and the exemption under section

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

255 (Gujarat), wherein the impugned reassessment proceedings initiated based on a “change of opinion” was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. 22. Per contra, Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Ld. CIT, DR submitted that as the AO while framing the original assessment vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 11/12/2018, had not looked into

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 :

255 (Kar.), wherein the computation of book profit with reference to sections 14A and 115JB has been considered and it is held that Explanation 1 in section 115JB(2) has been inserted so as to provide that if any provision for diminution in the value of any asset has been debited to the profit and loss account, it shall

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the validity of notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 as well as the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/sec.69A of the Act. 5. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee invited