MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

47,61,798 - 7,35,62,568 2018-19 6,77,03,448 1,74,25,120 93,97,572 26,08,388 61,56,891 - 10,32,91,419 2019-20 5,12,80,827 4,51,88,803 1,26,36,584 49,90,673 2,68

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

47,61,798 - 7,35,62,568 2018-19 6,77,03,448 1,74,25,120 93,97,572 26,08,388 61,56,891 - 10,32,91,419 2019-20 5,12,80,827 4,51,88,803 1,26,36,584 49,90,673 2,68

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), , HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

47,61,798 7,35,62,568 2018-19 6,77,03,448 1,74,25,120 93,97,572 26,08,388 61,56,891 10,32,91,419 2019-20 5,12,80,827 4,51,88,803 1,26,36,584 49,90,673 2,68

BANDI SUDHEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

Section equally, cannot be said to be attracted. 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. A perusal of the compromise deed shows that the agreement to sell and the Power of Attorney are confirmed, and a sum of Rs.50 lakhs is reduced from the total consideration of Rs.6.10 crores. Clause 3 of the said compromise deed confirms that

VENKAT RAJASEKHAR KONERU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

Section equally, cannot be said to be attracted. 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. A perusal of the compromise deed shows that the agreement to sell and the Power of Attorney are confirmed, and a sum of Rs.50 lakhs is reduced from the total consideration of Rs.6.10 crores. Clause 3 of the said compromise deed confirms that

PRAMOD REDDY TEKULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

Section equally, cannot be said to be attracted. 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. A perusal of the compromise deed shows that the agreement to sell and the Power of Attorney are confirmed, and a sum of Rs.50 lakhs is reduced from the total consideration of Rs.6.10 crores. Clause 3 of the said compromise deed confirms that

KYORI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kyori Infrastructure Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P Murali & Co., Ca, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Samajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Bala Krishna Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.263 Of The Act Of The Pr. Cit-2, Hyderabad Dated 26.2.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Infrastructure Activity. It Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 30.9.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 27.12.2017 With The Assessed Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. P A G E 1 | 11 Assessment Year : 2015-16

47 and 48 of the Act, which thus deserves to be dropped. In support of the above, reliance is placed on the following case laws. . [2010] 133 TTJ 595 (Chennai), IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH 'A' R. Gopinath (HUF) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Thus, we would like to submit that provisions of Capital gain do not arise towards

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 2(47) of I.T. Act. Thus the intention of the parties to the agreement was clear that the agreement was only for carrying out development work and not for sale of the land in question. The Ld. AR further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the development agreement, the owners of the land were having

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 2(47) of I.T. Act. Thus the intention of the parties to the agreement was clear that the agreement was only for carrying out development work and not for sale of the land in question. The Ld. AR further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the development agreement, the owners of the land were having

MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

section 2(22)(e) and keeping in view\nthe flexibility required in practical business situations, the AO treated\nthe payments made by the appellant company to the extent of 150%\nof the purchases made from the recipient companies as the payments\nmade in the ordinary course of business and the payments made in\nexcess of such

ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. MADHUSUDAN RAO LAGADAPATI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

68. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that the creditworthiness of the lender company is proved. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in accepting the genuineness of the transact-on. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in holding that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Vodafone International Holding (341 ITRI) is wrong

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

47,61,798 - 7,35,62,568 2018-19 6,77,03,448 1,74,25,120 93,97,572 26,08,388 61,56,891 - 10,32,91,419 2019-20 5,12,80,827 4,51,88,803 1,26,36,584 49,90,673 2,68

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

47,61,798 - 7,35,62,568 2018-19 6,77,03,448 1,74,25,120 93,97,572 26,08,388 61,56,891 - 10,32,91,419 2019-20 5,12,80,827 4,51,88,803 1,26,36,584 49,90,673 2,68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2) Vaishnavi Bullion (P) Ltd., and (3) Musaddilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, are independent of each other doing business separately. On 08.11.2016 at around 7 PM I was at my office of M/s Musaddilal Gems & Jewels (Pvt) Ltd and M/s Vaishnavi Bullion (Pvt) Ltd, during that time some people called me for purchase of gold& then I have informed them

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2) Vaishnavi Bullion (P) Ltd., and (3) Musaddilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, are independent of each other doing business separately. On 08.11.2016 at around 7 PM I was at my office of M/s Musaddilal Gems & Jewels (Pvt) Ltd and M/s Vaishnavi Bullion (Pvt) Ltd, during that time some people called me for purchase of gold& then I have informed them

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2) Vaishnavi Bullion (P) Ltd., and (3) Musaddilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, are independent of each other doing business separately. On 08.11.2016 at around 7 PM I was at my office of M/s Musaddilal Gems & Jewels (Pvt) Ltd and M/s Vaishnavi Bullion (Pvt) Ltd, during that time some people called me for purchase of gold& then I have informed them

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2) Vaishnavi Bullion (P) Ltd., and (3) Musaddilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, are independent of each other doing business separately. On 08.11.2016 at around 7 PM I was at my office of M/s Musaddilal Gems & Jewels (Pvt) Ltd and M/s Vaishnavi Bullion (Pvt) Ltd, during that time some people called me for purchase of gold& then I have informed them

YASHODA NIMMATURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(x) and proviso as provided therein, the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein has been paid by way of an account payee cheque on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property. Since the appellant claims to have entered

RAJA BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

section 56(2)(x) and proviso as provided therein, the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein has been paid by way of an account payee cheque on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property. Since the appellant claims to have entered