DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

147) (PB 107-177) (PB 240-244) expenses filed before the AO on 5 Date of regular 30.11.2012 26.12.2013 23.02.2015 assessment proceedings (PA178-198) (PB 178 - 193) (PB 245-265) u/s 143(3) 6 Four year time limit for 31.03.2013 31.03.2014 31.03.2015 issue of notice u/s 148 elapsed on 7 Notice for reassessment 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

147) (PB 107-177) (PB 240-244) expenses filed before the AO on 5 Date of regular 30.11.2012 26.12.2013 23.02.2015 assessment proceedings (PA178-198) (PB 178 - 193) (PB 245-265) u/s 143(3) 6 Four year time limit for 31.03.2013 31.03.2014 31.03.2015 issue of notice u/s 148 elapsed on 7 Notice for reassessment 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. K GOPAL RAJ, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

147 dated 31.03.2015 was passed assessing the capital gains at Rs.54,94,81,659/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) by raising the following objections through his additional grounds, which are summarized as under. 7 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others “(a) That notice u/s

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY KISHORE, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

147 dated 31.03.2015 was passed assessing the capital gains at Rs.54,94,81,659/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) by raising the following objections through his additional grounds, which are summarized as under. 7 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others “(a) That notice u/s

K GOPAL RAJ, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CEN.CIRCLE-1(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

147 dated 31.03.2015 was passed assessing the capital gains at Rs.54,94,81,659/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) by raising the following objections through his additional grounds, which are summarized as under. 7 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others “(a) That notice u/s

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY NAGARAJU, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

147 dated 31.03.2015 was passed assessing the capital gains at Rs.54,94,81,659/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) by raising the following objections through his additional grounds, which are summarized as under. 7 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others “(a) That notice u/s

DEEPTI SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY,HINDUPUR vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI,

Bench: Us:

section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 09/10/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee society has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1.1 The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

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

u/s. 143(3) after considering the credit balances in the accounts. There are no new facts before the A.O in the reassessment proceedings to change his opinion. 16. For these and any other grounds that may be raised at/before the date of hearing of appeal, it is prayed that the reassessment be held as invalid in law or alternatively delete

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

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

u/s. 143(3) after considering the credit balances in the accounts. There are no new facts before the A.O in the reassessment proceedings to change his opinion. 16. For these and any other grounds that may be raised at/before the date of hearing of appeal, it is prayed that the reassessment be held as invalid in law or alternatively delete

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

147 read with section 148 of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals were heard through video conferencing. 3. All these appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1678/CHNY/2014: A.Y. 2007-08 (Assessee’s appeal) 4. The assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. L.RAJALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

147 read with section 148 of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals were heard through video conferencing. 3. All these appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1678/CHNY/2014: A.Y. 2007-08 (Assessee’s appeal) 4. The assessee

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

147 read with section 148 of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals were heard through video conferencing. 3. All these appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1678/CHNY/2014: A.Y. 2007-08 (Assessee’s appeal) 4. The assessee

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

147 read with section 148 of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals were heard through video conferencing. 3. All these appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1678/CHNY/2014: A.Y. 2007-08 (Assessee’s appeal) 4. The assessee

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 :

245/- which is equivalent to Rs.28,48,173/-. 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

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 14.03.2025 in light of approval under Section 148B accorded by Addl.CIT/JCIT, and argued that, the approval granted by the Range Head is mechanical and without any application of mind and thus, the consequent assessment order passed by the A.O. in light of improper approval becomes invalid. We further noted that, the facts

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 14.03.2025 in light of approval under Section 148B accorded by Addl.CIT/JCIT, and argued that, the approval granted by the Range Head is mechanical and without any application of mind and thus, the consequent assessment order passed by the A.O. in light of improper approval becomes invalid. We further noted that, the facts

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 14.03.2025 in light of approval under Section 148B accorded by Addl.CIT/JCIT, and argued that, the approval granted by the Range Head is mechanical and without any application of mind and thus, the consequent assessment order passed by the A.O. in light of improper approval becomes invalid. We further noted that, the facts

MADHAVA REDDY BADDEVOLU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 14.03.2025 in light of approval under Section 148B accorded by Addl.CIT/JCIT, and argued that, the approval granted by the Range Head is mechanical and without any application of mind and thus, the consequent assessment order passed by the A.O. in light of improper approval becomes invalid. We further noted that, the facts