ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

201(1) of the Act it was observed by the Ld. DIT (International Taxation) that in the relevant Financial Year 2011-12, the assessee company had purchased house property consisting of two buildings at Municipal No.3-8-477 and 3-8-477/1, Survey No. 68, Mansoorabac Village, Saroor nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide Sale Deed dated 16/12/2011 registered

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

201(1A), belated payment of contribution to EPF and ESI, loans and advances given to related parties and expenditure incurred by the assessee under the head “trade discounts”, “seed purchases” and also amount debited under the head “ROC charges”. Consequent to the order passed by the learned PCIT under Section 263 of the Act, the A.O. issued notice under

SURYA PRABHA SUNKAVALLI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

68 of the Act if it goes without proper explanation. Findings on this aspect by the Ld. CIT(A) are well supported by the judicial opinion and, therefore, we do not propose to interfere with the same. So also the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that unless and until the assessee discharges the burden of proving the genuineness

M NEMICHAND JAIN JEWELLERS ,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.571/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri N. Nemichand Jain Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Jewellers Circle 1(2) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacfm8833B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/05/2024

201-20 in addition to its regular income for the Asst. Year 2019- 20. The same was confirmed by Sri Anil Kumar Jain in his sworn statement dated 22/03/2019. 4. In the return of income filed for AY 2019-20, the assessee has included income of Rs. 10,00,000/- and included the same in the computation of total income

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB (I) LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

201(1) of the Act and no proceedings have been initiated in this regard. Page 3 of 12 ITA Nos 1504 and 1654 of 2012. 11. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 34,79,005/- towards Contract salaries. 12. The Ld AO ought

M/S COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

201(1) of the Act and no proceedings have been initiated in this regard. Page 3 of 12 ITA Nos 1504 and 1654 of 2012. 11. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 34,79,005/- towards Contract salaries. 12. The Ld AO ought

ITO, WARD-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. R.K. INFRA & ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the CO of the assessee are dismissed

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

68,442/- Since the assessee has not deducted the tax on payments of interest to the above concerns and when the AO put the same before the assessee in the show cause notice, in reply, the assessee company relied on Board’s Circular and stated that the hire purchase transaction does not attract TDS provisions. The AO observed that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JAYA BALAJEE REAL MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. C. I.T. Vs. Jaya Balajee Real Media Central Circle 2(3) P Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecb3005 F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.3/Hyd/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3/Hyd/2020) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaya Balajee Real Media P Vs. Dy. C. I.T. Ltd, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aaecb3005 F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.10.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Also Filed A C.O No.3/Hyd/2020 Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

68, he confirmed the addition of Rs.2,28,00,000/- and deleted the remaining amount. So far as the addition of Rs.48,85,500/-disallowed by the Assessing Officer out of the operational cost is considered, although the assessee has taken a ground before the CIT (A), however, she has not adjudicated the same. Since the assessee has not raised

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

201(1) of the Act and no proceedings have been initiated in this regard. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 1941 are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 10,34,375/- towards Rent a/ c. 23. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

201(1) of the Act and no proceedings have been initiated in this regard. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 1941 are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 10,34,375/- towards Rent a/ c. 23. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section

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 :

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There are plethora of decisions consequent to the decision of Lovely Exports. It is also well settled law that onus of proving credits in its book of accounts lies squarely on the assessee and such proof consists of proving the identity of the subscriber or creditor, capacity of such creditor

MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

68,89,668/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07, deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO, as per his observation under para nos.6.5 and 6.6 of his order, which

MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

68,89,668/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07, deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO, as per his observation under para nos.6.5 and 6.6 of his order, which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

68,89,668/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07, deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO, as per his observation under para nos.6.5 and 6.6 of his order, which

MADHUCON SINO HYDRA JV ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

68,89,668/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07, deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO, as per his observation under para nos.6.5 and 6.6 of his order, which

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,013/- and 45,80,892/-assessment year wise, respectively, involving proceedings u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Page 1 of 8 ITA Nos 63 to 66 of 2018 AMD R&D Centre India P Ltd Bangalore 2. It emerges at the outset that we hardly need

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,013/- and 45,80,892/-assessment year wise, respectively, involving proceedings u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Page 1 of 8 ITA Nos 63 to 66 of 2018 AMD R&D Centre India P Ltd Bangalore 2. It emerges at the outset that we hardly need

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,013/- and 45,80,892/-assessment year wise, respectively, involving proceedings u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Page 1 of 8 ITA Nos 63 to 66 of 2018 AMD R&D Centre India P Ltd Bangalore 2. It emerges at the outset that we hardly need

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,013/- and 45,80,892/-assessment year wise, respectively, involving proceedings u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Page 1 of 8 ITA Nos 63 to 66 of 2018 AMD R&D Centre India P Ltd Bangalore 2. It emerges at the outset that we hardly need