PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU LEKKALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

68 of the Act, and unexplained expenditure / investment under Section 69C of the Act, on the basis of the seized material found during the course of search and challenged the additions made by the A.O. on the ground that, the loose papers found during the course of search with Shri G. Archan Kumar in his WhatsApp message

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

160 ITR 674. (vi) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the additions made u/s 68 and u/s 69 of the Act, on the ground that the company was not carrying on any business activity daring the year under consideration and no source of income exists

GANGADHAR AGARWAL,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D. The same was\namended by the 2nd Amendment Act; w.e.f. 01.04.2017, enhancing the rate to 60%. Hence there\nwas no new liability created and the rate of tax merely stood enhanced which is applicable to the\nassessments carried on in that year. The enhanced rate applies from the commencement of the\n assessment

VINOD RANKA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2007-08 Vinod Ranka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad-500 087. Ward-10(1), Pan: Abgpr 8903 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Sunil Kumar Jain Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

160. Initially the return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed on 30/11/2009 wherein the Ld. AO made several additions amongst which was one of the addition was towards unexplained loans of Rs.5,90,988 invoking the provision of section 68

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

68,16,160/-. A search\nand seizure operations u/s 132 were conducted on 05.01.2022, and the case\nwas centralized to Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad on 07.04.2022. During the\nsearch action the CMD of the group disclosed unaccounted income of Rs 60\nCrs for all the entries of the group for 5 assessment years. Notice u/s 148 were\nissued

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.29/Hyd/2025

160 3,941 8,48,910 20 21 322 8,083 2,501 1,905 5,493 16,70,380