CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

68 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is another line of authority which states that even in tax statutes an exemption provision should be liberally construed in accordance with the object sought to be achieved if such provision is to grant incentive for promoting economic growth or otherwise has some beneficial reason behind

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court held that there is another line of authority which\nstates that even in tax statutes an exemption provision should be\nliberally construed in accordance with the object sought to be\nachieved if such provision is to grant incentive for promoting\neconomic growth or otherwise has some beneficial reason behind

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court held that there is another line of authority which\nstates that even in tax statutes an exemption provision should be\nliberally construed in accordance with the object sought to be\nachieved if such provision is to grant incentive for promoting\neconomic growth or otherwise has some beneficial reason behind

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court held that there is another line of authority which\nstates that even in tax statutes an exemption provision should be\nliberally construed in accordance with the object sought to be\nachieved if such provision is to grant incentive for promoting\neconomic growth or otherwise has some beneficial reason behind

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. DEVENDER RAO GORUKANTI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Acit,Cc-2(2) Vs Devender Rao Gourkanti Room No.616,6Th Floor . H.No.8-2-293/82/Nl/231 Aaykar Bhawan Mla Mp Colony Basheerbagh Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 033 Pan : Akepg7452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2021-22. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Partner In M/S. Yashoda Helathcare Services Pvt.Ltd & Derives Partner’S Remuneration & Interest On Capital. He Filed His Original Return Of Income On 28.12.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,56,33,070/- A Search & Seizure Operation U/S. 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of Yashoda Group On 22.12.2020, During Which The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered. In Response To Notice U/S. 153A Of The I.T.Act,The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Admitting Additional

b),at the rate of sixty per cent; and ii. the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (i). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any Expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal I

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

B. Venkata Ramireddy that, it is a loan transaction, is incorrect. The Assessing Officer on the basis of document found during the course of search coupled with statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy, made addition of Rs.30 lakhs as unexplained cash. 61. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned

ANKITJAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our above observation

4 SCC\n307. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment, had held that it\nis the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a\nlegislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of\nthe parties nor by a superior court. The Hon'ble Apex Court further\nobserved that if the court passes an order

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

B”, Hyderabad in Deloitte Tax Services India Private Limited Vs. DCIT-Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, ITA 341/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024 and Deloitte & Touche Assurance & Enterprise Risk Services India Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024. 17. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue, and find that the CIT(Appeals) had deleted the disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GENESIS CROP SCIENCES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Genesis Crop Sciences Ward-2(2), (India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccg 7207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

Section 68 or the income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit trade credits) Asst. year 2008-09 - All credits was trade credits and none of said credits was cash credit - Moreover, we had produced ledger details of trade creditors as well as confirmatory letter from major trade creditors Whether In view of aforesaid, impugned order of Commissioner (Appeal

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

120\n3.\n2014-15 6,883\n10,32,45,000\n4,32,38,423\n6,00,06,577\n4.\n2013-14\n6,538\n9,80,70,000\n2,97,59,919\n6,83,10,081\n5.\n2012-13\n399\n59,85,000\n28,43,000\n31,42,000\nTOTAL

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

B”, Hyderabad in Deloitte Tax\nServices India Private Limited Vs. DCIT-Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, ITA\n341/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024 and Deloitte & Touche Assurance &\nEnterprise Risk Services India Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1),\nHyderabad, ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024.\n17. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue,\nand find that the CIT(Appeals) had deleted the disallowance

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,02,280/- whereas the income of the assessee was computed after assessment at Rs.29,55,62,962/-as per the order passed u/s 143(3). Interestingly after the search was carried out the assessee had filed the return of income declaring ‘nil’ income and sought a refund of Rs. 40,75,88,535/-. For all the three years

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,02,280/- whereas the income of the assessee was computed after assessment at Rs.29,55,62,962/-as per the order passed u/s 143(3). Interestingly after the search was carried out the assessee had filed the return of income declaring ‘nil’ income and sought a refund of Rs. 40,75,88,535/-. For all the three years