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

NETMATRIX CROP CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

202-21 on 04.11.2020, declaring an income of Rs. 75,19,06,190/-. The return of income was initially processed as such under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O., vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 12.09.2022, assessed the income of the assessee company

ORBIT 9 ELECTRONICS ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charym/S.Orbit 9 Electronics, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-6(2), [Pan No. Aabfo6265A] Hyderabad

68 Taxman 340 (SC), Addl.CIT Vs. T.Naggi Reddy [1993] 202 ITR 253 (SC), Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 542 (SC), Sinclair Murray & Co. (P) Ltd Vs. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 615 (SC), Union of India Vs. Bombay Tyre International Ltd [1983] 15 Taxman 29 (SC) and Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT [1985] 22 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAGNA HOMES, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Magna Homes, Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Pan : Aapfg5917K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 148A(b) was issued to the appellant on 16.03.2022 and in response, the appellant has 3 ITA 327/Hyd/2024 not furnished any information. Order u/s. 148A(d) was passed with the prior approval of the specified authority. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 30.03.2022. However, the appellant has not filed any return

NAGARAJ KURAPATI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year: 2011-12 Nagaraj Kurapati, Hyderabad Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Akfpk 5953 K

68 of the Act, is right in law. 3. After hearing the rival contentions, I hold as follows: 4. The disallowance u/s 40A(3) pertains to staff welfare expenses. After considering the material on record, I find that the total expenditure incurred and claimed under the head by the assessee is only Rs. 9,25,825/- and whereas the disallowance

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal I

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section-4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is fully satisfied without any uncertainty or vagueness, no tax can be levied. In 59 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 this regard, he relied upon decision of ITAT, Jabalpur Bench in the case of ACIT vs., Satyapal Wassan [2008] 5 DTR_TRIB

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

202/-, and calculated the tax liability at Rs.11,77,72,357/-. The AO gave a demand notice of Rs. 20 ITA.No.325/Hyd./2023 11,84,85,235/- plus Rs.11,77,72,357/- thus arriving at a total demand of Rs.23,62,37,592/-. Thus, the AO has calculated the income twice for the same disallowance and gave a demand notice

DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EAST INDIA PETROLEUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

68,28,250/- and debited to the Profit & Loss account. On amalgamation, the same loan liability has been taken over by the assessee and interest paid on said loan has been treated as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer further observed that, if interest claim is allowed, it will tantamount to allowing assessee company, payment of interest on money borrowed

BONDUGULA KRISHNA REDDY, R.R.DIST,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed

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

section 153C are not applicable in the appellant's case and the assessment made u/s 153C is not valid; and (b) holding that the CBDT circular No.24/2015 has no relevance in the appellant's case since the assessment was completed on 31-12-2010, which was before the issue of the circular. Without prejudice to the above

BONDUGULA KRISHNA REDDY, R.R.DIST,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed

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

section 153C are not applicable in the appellant's case and the assessment made u/s 153C is not valid; and (b) holding that the CBDT circular No.24/2015 has no relevance in the appellant's case since the assessment was completed on 31-12-2010, which was before the issue of the circular. Without prejudice to the above

BONDUGULA KRISHNA REDDY, R.R.DIST,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed

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

section 153C are not applicable in the appellant's case and the assessment made u/s 153C is not valid; and (b) holding that the CBDT circular No.24/2015 has no relevance in the appellant's case since the assessment was completed on 31-12-2010, which was before the issue of the circular. Without prejudice to the above

BONDUGULA KRISHNA REDDY, R.R.DIST,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed

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

section 153C are not applicable in the appellant's case and the assessment made u/s 153C is not valid; and (b) holding that the CBDT circular No.24/2015 has no relevance in the appellant's case since the assessment was completed on 31-12-2010, which was before the issue of the circular. Without prejudice to the above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

202 a Rao 16562750 10620000 5310000 5895645 30.03.2019 2018-19 C- 9 902 Sridhar 04.04.2019 2019-20 16828250 9292500 4646250 7604212 10 FG-5 Rangoli garg 21463250 13167000 8000000 22.04.2019 2019-20 6583500 4987500 71594632 14. The Managing Director of the DSR replied to the said question and submitted that he had no idea who entered the data and that

D S R INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

202 a Rao 16562750 10620000 5310000 5895645 30.03.2019 2018-19 C- 9 902 Sridhar 04.04.2019 2019-20 16828250 9292500 4646250 7604212 10 FG-5 Rangoli garg 21463250 13167000 8000000 22.04.2019 2019-20 6583500 4987500 71594632 14. The Managing Director of the DSR replied to the said question and submitted that he had no idea who entered the data and that

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

202 a Rao 16562750 10620000 5310000 5895645 30.03.2019 2018-19 C- 9 902 Sridhar 04.04.2019 2019-20 16828250 9292500 4646250 7604212 10 FG-5 Rangoli garg 21463250 13167000 8000000 22.04.2019 2019-20 6583500 4987500 71594632 14. The Managing Director of the DSR replied to the said question and submitted that he had no idea who entered the data and that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

202 a Rao 16562750 10620000 5310000 5895645 30.03.2019 2018-19 C- 9 902 Sridhar 04.04.2019 2019-20 16828250 9292500 4646250 7604212 10 FG-5 Rangoli garg 21463250 13167000 8000000 22.04.2019 2019-20 6583500 4987500 71594632 14. The Managing Director of the DSR replied to the said question and submitted that he had no idea who entered the data and that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

202 a Rao 16562750 10620000 5310000 5895645 30.03.2019 2018-19 C- 9 902 Sridhar 04.04.2019 2019-20 16828250 9292500 4646250 7604212 10 FG-5 Rangoli garg 21463250 13167000 8000000 22.04.2019 2019-20 6583500 4987500 71594632 14. The Managing Director of the DSR replied to the said question and submitted that he had no idea who entered the data and that