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

8 of the query letter, he\nhad called upon the assessee company to justify its claim for\ndepreciation at higher rates/additional depreciation for the year under\nconsideration, Page 107-108 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO\nvide his notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 09/11/2018 had,\nagain called upon the assessee company to furnish

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)

8 Rashid Hussain vs. ACIT 29/11/2023, by the ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad (copy placed on record). 13. We shall first deal with the Ld. DR’s contention that as the assessee has within the specified time period contemplated under sub- section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, i.e., within a period of one month from the date

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

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

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

8. He submitted that the closing stock of FY 2008-09 has been taken as the opening stock of FY 2009-10 and therefore, in absence of any tangible material before the AO, he could not have reopened the assessment. Referring to a series of decisions, he submitted that in absence of any tangible material before the AO, he cannot

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

8. He submitted that the closing stock of FY 2008-09 has been taken as the opening stock of FY 2009-10 and therefore, in absence of any tangible material before the AO, he could not have reopened the assessment. Referring to a series of decisions, he submitted that in absence of any tangible material before the AO, he cannot

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

8. He submitted that the closing stock of FY 2008-09 has been taken as the opening stock of FY 2009-10 and therefore, in absence of any tangible material before the AO, he could not have reopened the assessment. Referring to a series of decisions, he submitted that in absence of any tangible material before the AO, he cannot

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

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

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