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 :

reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13· viii. It is accordingly clear that no substantive assessment has been made on this issue in the hands of the Assessee. When there is no substantive addition, there can be no protective addition as well. When the very basis of the income 'goes', the addition in this Assessee's hands, which was treated

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

reassessment proceedings, wherein it was stated that though the assessee company had purchased the power plant but had not put to use the same for its commercial operation and not generated any income, therefore, it was not entitled for claiming depreciation on the same, Page 145-147 of APB. Also, it was submitted by the Ld. CIT-DR that

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB)] 3) JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.[258 ITR 126 (Gauhati)] 4) CIT Vs. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. [258 ITR 300 (Raj)] 7 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. 5) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT [234 ITR 170 (Delhi)] 6) Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

256 ITR 1 (Delhi)(FB)] 3) JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.[258 ITR 126 (Gauhati)] 4) CIT Vs. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. [258 ITR 300 (Raj)] 7 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. 5) Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCIT [234 ITR 170 (Delhi)] 6) Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC

GMR AIR CARGO & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LTD(SUCCESSOR TO GMR HYDERABAD AIR CARGO & LOGISTICS PVT LTD),SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC

NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhassessment Year:2009-10

reassessment proceedings, the AO made the addition of Rs.2,71,89,574/- relating to long term capital gains invoking the provisions of section 50C of Income Tax Act. Against which the assessee went on appeal before the CIT (A) and the Ld.CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence the assessee filed this appeal before the ITAT. Page

BHARGAVI MARKETERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD 6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

256 ITR 1(Del)(FB) approved by the supreme court in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) which has been held to be against the provisions of law by various appellate authorities and hence the order of the ld CIT(A) required to be quashed.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, a firm e-filed its return

VASU PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

256 ITR 001(Del.HC) vii. Prakriya Pharmacem vs. ITO reported in 238 taxman 185(Guj.HC) viii.Ratna Trayi Relaity Service Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO reported in 356 ITR 493(Guj.HC) ix.Vipan Khanna vs.CIT reported in 255 ITR 220(P&H) x. Dell India Pvt.Ltd.Jt.CIT,LTU reported in 432 ITR 212 (Kar.HC) xi. Indian and Eastern News paper society vs. CIT reported

VASU AGENCIES,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

256 ITR 001(Del.HC) vii. Prakriya Pharmacem vs. ITO reported in 238 taxman 185(Guj.HC) viii.Ratna Trayi Relaity Service Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO reported in 356 ITR 493(Guj.HC) ix.Vipan Khanna vs.CIT reported in 255 ITR 220(P&H) x. Dell India Pvt.Ltd.Jt.CIT,LTU reported in 432 ITR 212 (Kar.HC) xi. Indian and Eastern News paper society vs. CIT reported

VENKATA SAI AGENCIES,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

256 ITR 001(Del.HC) vii. Prakriya Pharmacem vs. ITO reported in 238 taxman 185(Guj.HC) viii.Ratna Trayi Relaity Service Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO reported in 356 ITR 493(Guj.HC) ix.Vipan Khanna vs.CIT reported in 255 ITR 220(P&H) x. Dell India Pvt.Ltd.Jt.CIT,LTU reported in 432 ITR 212 (Kar.HC) xi. Indian and Eastern News paper society vs. CIT reported

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. NEW CLUB, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

256/-, 9. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a club, did not file its return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Accordingly, reassessment proceedings under Page 2 of 12 New Club section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. EMAAR HILLS TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

256 Taxman 59 (SC) 8 ITA.No.425/Hyd./2023 held that, non-compliance of direction of Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (supra) that, on receipt of objection given by assessee to notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of objections by passing a speaking order, would not make reassessment order void ab initio

GUPTA ASHOK KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

reassessment is not sustainable in view of the very basic fact that there was no reason for reopening and as it does not contain any material establishing live-link for the information & the conclusion to enable a reasonable person to form a prima-facie belief for escapement of income except a report of Investigation Wing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ZARA INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.64/Hyd/2021 & 65/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Zara Investments Income Tax Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacz4043R] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. Zara Investments Pvt. Ltd.

section 68 of the Act. Once the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, then the onus shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. In the present case, although the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved all three ingredients provided u/s 68 of the Act, but the Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained cash credit only