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

N. NEMICHAND JEWELLERS,,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. M. Nemichand Vs. A.C.I.T. Jewellers Secunderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aacfm8833B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2022 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business Of Retail-Trading Of Gold Jewellery & Pawn Brokers. During The Course Of Vehicle Checking Duty Conducted During Parliament Elections, The Police Intercepted Shri Anil Kumar Jain At 8.30 P M On 20.02.2019 Near Subhan Bakery, Nampally, Hyderabad & Found A Bag Containing Cash Of Rs. 10,00,000/- While He Was Riding Honda Activa Bearing Reg. No.Ts10El1501 & Seized The Cash.

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. 6. The Assessing Officer noted that in the return of income filed for AY 2019-20, the assessee has included income of Rs.10,00,000/- for the A.Y.2019-20 in addition

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

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

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

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

3 of 12 8. Ld. CIT(A) considered the Second question of applicability of section 68 of the Act to the case of the assessee, in the light of the decisions reported in V.I.S.P.(P) Limited Vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 202 (MP), Gumani Ram Siri Ram Vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 337 (P & H) and Suresh Kumar

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

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 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

3 of 10 ITA No 571 of 2023 M Nemichand Jain Jewellers depositing into his firm’s bank account at around 5.00 PM. But the Bank was closed and thus he carried the said cash to his relative’s office at Nampally. While returning from his relative’s house from Nampally, the Police intercepted him and the cash was seized

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 16/06/2017 and the said order was confirmed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 16/06/2017 and the said order was confirmed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 16/06/2017 and the said order was confirmed

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 16/06/2017 and the said order was confirmed

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 16/06/2017 and the said order was confirmed

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 16/06/2017 and the said order was confirmed

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 16/06/2017 and the said order was confirmed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 16/06/2017 and the said order was confirmed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 16/06/2017 and the said order was confirmed