SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

RAGHUNATH REDDY GANGARAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

MADHAVA REDDY BADDEVOLU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. Y S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, KADAPA

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is\nallowed

3) u/s 131 on oath\nfrom Shri Sanjay S. Mitra, Shri Neel Kamal Berry and Shri\nJoydeep Basu of the Dalmia group were also furnished to the\nassessee and sought clarifications on the matter. The assessee\nvide letter dated 20.09.2013 stated that the proposal to make\naddition on the basis of Investigation Report submitted in the\ncase of Dalmia group

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the A

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

SECTION 234(3) OF THE ACT: 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A 0 erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying interest uls 2348 of the Act and the said levy of interest being Wholly Unjustified, ought

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the A

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

SECTION 234(3) OF THE ACT: 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A 0 erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying interest uls 2348 of the Act and the said levy of interest being Wholly Unjustified, ought

DEEPA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessees preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A) and, among other things, argued that there was no incriminating material relevant to the matter on the issue pertaining to these assessment years and since no assessment was pending for these assessment years as on the date of search in terms of the decision

NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ष अपीलार्थीर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / Ita No. / A.Y. Appellant Respondent Narender Kumar Gupta, Assistant 45/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aezpg9653A] Income Tax, 46/Hyd/2022 2013-14 Central Circle-3(1), Virender Kumar Gupta, Hyderabad 47/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad [Pan: Aaspg1887D]

68 of the Act in case of these assessees for these years. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessees preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A) and, among other things, argued that there was no Page 2 of 9 ITA Nos. 45, 46 & 47/Hyd/2022 incriminating material relevant to the matter on the issue pertaining to these assessment years and since no assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD vs. VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ष अपीलार्थीर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / Ita No. / A.Y. Appellant Respondent Narender Kumar Gupta, Assistant 45/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aezpg9653A] Income Tax, 46/Hyd/2022 2013-14 Central Circle-3(1), Virender Kumar Gupta, Hyderabad 47/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad [Pan: Aaspg1887D]

68 of the Act in case of these assessees for these years. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessees preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A) and, among other things, argued that there was no Page 2 of 9 ITA Nos. 45, 46 & 47/Hyd/2022 incriminating material relevant to the matter on the issue pertaining to these assessment years and since no assessment

NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ष अपीलार्थीर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / Ita No. / A.Y. Appellant Respondent Narender Kumar Gupta, Assistant 45/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aezpg9653A] Income Tax, 46/Hyd/2022 2013-14 Central Circle-3(1), Virender Kumar Gupta, Hyderabad 47/Hyd/2022 2012-13 Hyderabad [Pan: Aaspg1887D]

68 of the Act in case of these assessees for these years. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessees preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A) and, among other things, argued that there was no Page 2 of 9 ITA Nos. 45, 46 & 47/Hyd/2022 incriminating material relevant to the matter on the issue pertaining to these assessment years and since no assessment

CURIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(AFTER MERGER AMRI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,51,876 Total Purchase Value 40,42,54,875 4,51,30,163 The assessee had submitted a copy of audited financial statement of M/s. Ariane Orgachem Pvt.Ltd as on 31.03.2007. The audited financial statements had not been submitted in respect of M/s. Ferico Laboratories Ltd. The assessee had not submitted any valuation report and thus had failed

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD vs. SOUTH ASIAN CERAMIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

68 regarding unsecured loans: Rs.38,30,75,528/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who allowed the same and vacated all the aforementioned three additions that were made by the AO. 8. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before