PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. PUJALA MAHESH BABU , RANGA REDDY

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,32,843 from export turnover not `derived `from export activity, without considering the foreign exchange fluctuation loss and considering only the net foreign exchange gain of Rs.63,66,53,406. 23. The Hon'ble CIT(A) in para 12 of its order held that the assessee had loss in realisation of export proceeds due to foreign exchange fluctuation

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

68 of the Act. 4.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding all the documents/evidence already on record, which proves the nature of the transaction as well as its genuineness as a loan given by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries to settle their subsisting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

68 of the Act. 4.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding all the documents/evidence already on record, which proves the nature of the transaction as well as its genuineness as a loan given by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries to settle their subsisting

BIOLOGICAL E LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

108/- by invoking section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (“the Rules”). 4. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed by order dated 30/12/2017 determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 68

ALKOR PETROO LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Alkor Petroo Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aadca9825D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. Chandrasekhar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Extraction Of Crude Oil. It Is Also Subsidiary Company Of M/S. Ivrcl Ltd (Under Liquidation As Going Concern As Per The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (Cirp). It Filed Its Return Of Income On 14.8.2018 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.14,01,951/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly Statutory Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee Through Itba On Page 1 Of 6

108/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act. 3.1 Similarly, from the Profit & Loss account and return of income for the impugned A.Y, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown interest income of Rs.6,79,614/- and claimed expenses of professional/consultancy fees/fee for technical services of Rs.16,05,000/-, bank charges

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,087/-. 86. The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that the A.O., on the basis of statement recorded from Sri Kurra Jogeshwara Rao, Director of Avexa Corporation Private Limited, during the course of search, treated the sub-contract awarded by the assessee as non-genuine and concluded that the payments made to Avexa Corporation Private Limited were