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

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

KIRAN DWARAKANATH SEKHAR, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyassessment Year: 2010-11 Naresh Kumar Sekhar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abapt 0359G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kiran Dwarakanath Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sekhar, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5346D (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 364 & 365/Hyd/2017 Naresh Kumar Sekhar and another, Hyd. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. As the facts and grounds are identical in these appeals, they were clubbed and heard together and therefore a common order is passed for the sake of convenience. Therefore, the decision taken in ITA No. 364/Hyd/2017 shall mutatis

NARESH KUMAR SEKHER, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyassessment Year: 2010-11 Naresh Kumar Sekhar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abapt 0359G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kiran Dwarakanath Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sekhar, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5346D (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 364 & 365/Hyd/2017 Naresh Kumar Sekhar and another, Hyd. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. As the facts and grounds are identical in these appeals, they were clubbed and heard together and therefore a common order is passed for the sake of convenience. Therefore, the decision taken in ITA No. 364/Hyd/2017 shall mutatis

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

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

147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 B) On verification of the computation of total income, P & L account and Balance Sheet, it is observed that the assessee company has debited an amount of Rs.66,15,891/- towards loss on sale of assets. However, the assessee had added back the same as inadmissible in the computation of total income

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

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

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

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

u/s 132 at my office M/s. KMR Estates and Builders Pvt. Ltd., No. 1175, Road No.56, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. However, we have submitted detailed reconciliation statement after verification of our bank accounts and books of account of the company in respect of sale consideration received through channel. As per the said reconciliation statement we have received an amount of Rs.78.26

SANJAY GARUDAPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

u/s 132 at my office M/s. KMR Estates and Builders Pvt. Ltd., No. 1175, Road No.56, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. However, we have submitted detailed reconciliation statement after verification of our bank accounts and books of account of the company in respect of sale consideration received through channel. As per the said reconciliation statement we have received an amount of Rs.78.26