GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

revision proceedings u/s 263 by the PCIT (Central) Hyderabad and the same has been scrutinized by the Tribunal in appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) ought not to have ventured into to enhance the assessment for the impugned A.Y. Therefore, on this count itself, the enhancement of assessment made by the learned CIT (A) cannot be sustained. Page

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

revision proceedings u/s 263 by the PCIT (Central) Hyderabad and the same has been scrutinized by the Tribunal in appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) ought not to have ventured into to enhance the assessment for the impugned A.Y. Therefore, on this count itself, the enhancement of assessment made by the learned CIT (A) cannot be sustained. Page

JVR RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Jvr Retails Private Limited Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1) C/O. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 Pan : Aaccv9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V.Joshi Appeared For P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021 Passed U/S. 263 By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad Relating To A Y 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In The Business Of Retails & Manufacturing Of Jewelry. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 49,97,390/- On 08.09.2012 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 21.02.2013. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment By Recording Reasons As Per Provisions Of Section 147. The Reasons To Believe Which Was Put Up Before The Ld.Pcit-2 For Approval & Which Has Been Reproduced By The Ao In The Body Of The Assessment Order Read As Under:-

section 68 of the I.T.Act. We find the ld.PCIT initiated proceedings u/s. 263 of the I.T.Act on the ground that during the FY 2011-12, the share capital of the company has increased from Rs. 3,42,070/- to Rs. 4,85,67,070/- thereby increase in the share capital of the assessee company

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

revised merely because the query and reply are not reflected in the assessment order. 15. However, we find that the Pr. CIT was of the view that, as the Assessing Officer had failed to properly examine the above issues, the assessment order passed by him was rendered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5 (1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,869/- vide his order dated 31.01.2018. Later on, Ld. PCIT called for the record for examination u/s. 263 of the Act. After perusal of the record, Ld. PCIT held that the amount of Rs.340.45 Crores paid to Pfizer is a capital expenditure and is not for the business expediency of ASPL. On the aspect of the liquidated damages

AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

263 of the Act. We hereby deem it apposite to cull out the\nSCN, dated 17.03.2025, which reads as under:\nSHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961\nM/s. Amararaja Power Systems Limited (hereinafter referred as 'the assessee')\nfiled return of income for the A.Y.2020-21 on 28.11.2020 declaring a total income of\nRs.35,78,29,240/-. The case

RK INFRA & ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 R.K. Infra & Engineering India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr9570Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.11.2022

revise the assessment order is a conscious view adopted by the learned assessing officer, which is not shown to be erroneous and consequently, the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act stands ousted and accordingly the impugned order passed deserves to be cancelled.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in the business

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.3.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit (Central) Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Incorporated On 31.1.2014 & Is In The Business Of Real Estate. It Did Not File Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y 2014- 15. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted On 20.9.2017. In Response To Notice U/S 153A Dated 11.5.2018, No Return Of Income Was Filed. The Ar Of The Assessee Also Refused To Appear When Contacted By The Assessing Officer. Subsequently, The Partner Of The Assessee Firm Shri Gaddam Shyam

revision and direction for adding back the same amounts to double taxation and unjustified in law. 4. The Ld. Pr. CIT failed to appreciate the legal position that no single incidence of accrual of revenue to an assessee can be brought to tax in two years and that when once a certain transaction has been brought

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

revise the income keeping in view the directions at paragraphs 7.2 to 7.4 of the order. In light of the above, the Hon'ble ITAT may kindly dismiss the appeal of the assessee.” 7.1 In addition to the above, the ld. DR relied on the order of Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 and submitted that the AO failed to enquire

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

revise the income keeping in view the directions at paragraphs 7.2 to 7.4 of the order. In light of the above, the Hon'ble ITAT may kindly dismiss the appeal of the assessee.” 7.1 In addition to the above, the ld. DR relied on the order of Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 and submitted that the AO failed to enquire

VUPPALA RAJ KUMAR, SIDDIPET,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIDDIPET, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10

68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal against the second order of the CIT u/s 263 dated 31.5.2016 by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Hon'ble Pr. CIT-7, Hyderabad u/s 263 of the IT Act is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 when the Assessing Officer has duly carried out the inquiry by issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act which were duly replied by the assessee by furnishing the relevant record and details. It was contended by the assessee that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee

N JAIDEEP REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

u/s 263 of the Act. 15. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Shri KCKA Gupra, copy of which is placed at page No.13 of the Paper Book filed, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where two views are possible

K LAXMA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

u/s 263 of the Act. 15. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Shri KCKA Gupra, copy of which is placed at page No.13 of the Paper Book filed, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where two views are possible

N JAIVEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

u/s 263 of the Act. 15. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Shri KCKA Gupra, copy of which is placed at page No.13 of the Paper Book filed, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where two views are possible

K VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

u/s 263 of the Act. 15. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Shri KCKA Gupra, copy of which is placed at page No.13 of the Paper Book filed, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where two views are possible

GOPAL REDDY GATTU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD

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

u/s 143(3) read with sec 144B of the IT Act estimating the income @5% on gross receipts of Rs. 270.73 crores. 4. The PCIT's erred in issuing show cause notice dated 21.10.2024 findings that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue are arbitrary, perverse, and based on mere conjectures and surmises

M/S SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 143(3) on 28.12.2010 determining the assessed income at Rs.1,67,58,560/-. 4. The CIT noted that by virtue of powers vested vide section 263 of the I.T. Act, his predecessor called for the assessment records of the assessee Company and examined them. On examination of the assessment records, the following discrepancies were noted: (i) The assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

revision order dated 26/02/2018 passed Page 1 of 32 ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd by the learned Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 respectively for the A.Y 2012-13. 2. First, we take up the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No.1580/Hyd/2017, wherein the Department has raised the following grounds: 3. Ground No.1