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:

7. Per contra, Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) objected to the admission of the aforementioned additional grounds of appeal. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before us, viz., (i) grounds of appeal No.3,4 & 5 (forming part of the grounds

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:

7. Per contra, Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) objected to the admission of the aforementioned additional grounds of appeal. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before us, viz., (i) grounds of appeal No.3,4 & 5 (forming part of the grounds

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

255 (Gujarat), wherein the impugned\nreassessment proceedings initiated based on a “change of opinion” was\nset aside by the Hon'ble High Court.\n22. Per contra, Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Ld. CIT, DR submitted that as\nthe AO while framing the original assessment vide his order passed\nunder section 143(3) of the Act, dated 11/12/2018, had not looked into

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)

7 Rashid Hussain vs. ACIT “Central Circle”, cannot be issued by JAO and has to be issued in a faceless manner as per amended provisions brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 01.04.2021. The Ld. AR had placed on record a copy of the ITAT order in the case of Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy vs. DCIT (supra), wherein reliance

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

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 in 119 ITR 996 xii. Maharaj kumar Kamal singh vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 1 (SC) xiii.CIT vs. A.Raman & Co. reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC) xiv. Bankipur club Ltd. 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

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 in 119 ITR 996 xii. Maharaj kumar Kamal singh vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 1 (SC) xiii.CIT vs. A.Raman & Co. reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC) xiv. Bankipur club Ltd. 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

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 in 119 ITR 996 xii. Maharaj kumar Kamal singh vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 1 (SC) xiii.CIT vs. A.Raman & Co. reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC) xiv. Bankipur club Ltd. vs CIT reported

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

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

255/- is related to the US Branch sales receivables and for the purpose of consolidation the sales are accounted in the books of the assessee. Hence, the same cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee. 2.5. Ought to have appreciated that the assessee need not to pay the tax merely because it is following the mercantile

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