ABBAS ALI AKHIL,USA vs. ACIT-INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

reassessment, or re-computation shall be made under Section 147, after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under Section 148 was served. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, if we go by the issuance of notice under Section 148 and proper service of said notice

MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

reassessment, or re-computation shall be made under Section 147, after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under Section 148 was served. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, if we go by the issuance of notice under Section 148 and proper service of said notice

MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

reassessment, or re-computation shall be made under Section 147, after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under Section 148 was served. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, if we go by the issuance of notice under Section 148 and proper service of said notice

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

u/s 92CA, and the same would extend the time limit up to 31.12.2023, whereas the A.O. passed the final assessment order only on 06.12.2024, which is beyond the limitation provided under the Act, and therefore, cannot be sustained. Therefore, he submitted that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. should be quashed

INTERWRAP CORP PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

u/s 144C(5) of the Act, is bad in law and void ab initio so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. TPO/Ld, AO erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 47,92,29,000 on account of adjustment towards

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/-.”

prices Rs.5.25 and Rs.7.00 could be quotations on the same day i.e.. 31.07.2005. In view of the same the transaction appears to be an off-market negotiated transaction. Since SIT will not be deducted in off-market transaction, the sale would attract capital gains tax. (ii) As the details of STT are not on record, the exemption u/s

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/-.”

prices Rs.5.25 and Rs.7.00 could be quotations on the same day i.e.. 31.07.2005. In view of the same the transaction appears to be an off-market negotiated transaction. Since SIT will not be deducted in off-market transaction, the sale would attract capital gains tax. (ii) As the details of STT are not on record, the exemption u/s

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

u/s 80-IC/801AB/10AA of the Act. 11.4. Further the Ld. A.O/Hon'ble DRP, ignored the order of Hon'ble ITAT in Appellant own case for the previous assessment years wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has ruled in favour of Appellant. The Appellant requests, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and reserves

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

u/s 80-IC/801AB/10AA of the Act. 11.4. Further the Ld. A.O/Hon'ble DRP, ignored the order of Hon'ble ITAT in Appellant own case for the previous assessment years wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has ruled in favour of Appellant. The Appellant requests, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and reserves

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

reassessment proceedings amounting to Rs.273,02,94,670/-. 5. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that notice u/s 148 is issued on account of a letter from ADIT Kolkata, in respect of a transaction amounting to Rs.5,64,94,670/- and further in respect of transaction of Rs.267,38,00,000/-on merely a TEP. As there

SRI EDUPAYALA VANA DURGA BHAVANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

Bench: Us:

reassessment order, if passed, would result in a baseless and unwarranted demand, causing undue hardship to the appellant.” 3 Sri Edupayala Vana Durga Bhavani 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee, an AOP, had not filed its return of income for the subject year, i.e., A.Y. 2016-17. The A.O., based on information that the assessee had during the subject year made

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

u/s 92CA and the same is extended up to 31.12.2023, whereas the A.O. passed the final assessment order only on 06.06.2024, which is beyond the limitation provided under the Act, and therefore, cannot be sustained. Therefore, she submitted that, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. should be quashed. 8. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue

KRISHNA MURTHY ELLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.585/Hyd/2023 & Sa No.10/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.585/Hyd/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Krishna Murthy Ella Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aacpe6389G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

price which is less than the fair market value/book value of the shares. Therefore, opined that the Assessing Officer is right in assessing the differential amount of Rs.2,75,37,750/- as income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. b) No evidence of any new tangible material has been referred to by the Ld. AO in the reasons for re-opening the assessment and hence, it is a mere change of opinion, and the Ld. AO does not have any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. c) There

SYED GULAM MOHIUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.136/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Gulam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Decpm0365H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2023 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (International Taxation-1), Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1,Hyd (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant.

transferred amount towards sale consideration to M/s Skill Promoters Private Ltd through proper banking channels. 16. The Ld. A.O making a huge addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- without 16. having any documentary and corroborative evidence especially u/s 69 as unexplained investment which is baseless. 17. The Ld. A.O ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee

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

Transfer Pricing adjustments were required to be made in the instant case. It was also noticed that the claim of expenditure on ESOPs is not proper since it is notional and capital in nature. Assessee was also called upon to furnish details of Research and Development (R & D) expenses in connection with the claim of weighted deduction. Accordingly, the assessee

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

Transfer Pricing adjustments were required to be made in the instant case. It was also noticed that the claim of expenditure on ESOPs is not proper since it is notional and capital in nature. Assessee was also called upon to furnish details of Research and Development (R & D) expenses in connection with the claim of weighted deduction. Accordingly, the assessee

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

Transfer Pricing adjustments were required to be made in the instant case. It was also noticed that the claim of expenditure on ESOPs is not proper since it is notional and capital in nature. Assessee was also called upon to furnish details of Research and Development (R & D) expenses in connection with the claim of weighted deduction. Accordingly, the assessee