DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VARSITY EDUCATION MANAGEMENT PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 208/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Varsity Education Income Tax, Central Circle Management (P) Ltd 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcv6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/Order

68 has no application in case of any amount received as share capital from a non-resident entity. Further, excess premium also cannot be charged to tax as per section Page 7 of 12 ITA No 208

VISHAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

68 of the Act were not applicable and the AD was not justified in making the addition. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made by the AD." The above decision has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pro CIT -5 vs. Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd. Further

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

RAHUL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Rahul Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aifpa2046P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

68 of the Act, only on the basis of not filing confirmation letter, even when it is demonstrated that the amount was received through banking channels, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest under section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,126/-. 11.1 Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the issue requires verification from the books of account of the assessee and prayed for remand of the issue to the file of Ld. AO for verification. ITA No.912/Hyd/2024 29 11.2 We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.29/Hyd/2025

208 25,400 50,810 1,31,71,810 11 12 13 1,439 20,271 25,773 1,71,

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

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

MANTRI COSMOS II OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

208 ITR 481 / 75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/ 117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions

MANTRI COSMOS II OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

208 ITR 481 / 75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/ 117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

208,333 under section 37 of the Act disregarding the fact that the differential interest amount (market value of interest income vs interest charged from employee) was already taxed as perquisite in the hands of the Managing Director. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the LA. AO/LA. Panel erred in initiating

ITO, WARD-5(3),, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI BRIJ GOPAL P SHAH, HUF,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

208) that order under section 154 is not possible wherever facts are to be examined. 17. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the principle laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Volkarts Brothers (82 ITR 50) that mistake must be obvious and patent-not something which can be established by a long drawn process

ITO, WARD-5(3),, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR D SHAH, HUF, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

208) that order under section 154 is not possible wherever facts are to be examined. 17. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the principle laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Volkarts Brothers (82 ITR 50) that mistake must be obvious and patent-not something which can be established by a long drawn process

ITO, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. TINI PHARMA LTD., HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Tini Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaact 7976K

68 Taxmann.com 289 (Madras). 7. The ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted that for applicability of section 41, there should be an allowance or deduction claimed by the assessee in any assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee. Then, subsequently, during any previous year, if the creditor remits

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

208/-, the additional depreciation has to be allowed @ of 20% and the same is worked out at Rs. 362,27,68,020/- (half of 20% as the plant and machinery as the same is installed for less than 180 days). Therefore, the excess depreciation of Rs. 271,70,42,063/- (Rs. 6,33,98,10,083/- Rs. 362,27,68

M/S. SHRI RAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 22 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, referring to case law and restricted the bad debts claim of Rs. 47,68,54,048.44 to Rs. 2,38,42,702.42 and the balance amount of Rs. 45,30,11,346.02 was disallowed by holding that it is not an allowable expenditure either as bad debt

M/S. SHRI RAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 22 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, referring to case law and restricted the bad debts claim of Rs. 47,68,54,048.44 to Rs. 2,38,42,702.42 and the balance amount of Rs. 45,30,11,346.02 was disallowed by holding that it is not an allowable expenditure either as bad debt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. SRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 22 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, referring to case law and restricted the bad debts claim of Rs. 47,68,54,048.44 to Rs. 2,38,42,702.42 and the balance amount of Rs. 45,30,11,346.02 was disallowed by holding that it is not an allowable expenditure either as bad debt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. SHRI RAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 22 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, referring to case law and restricted the bad debts claim of Rs. 47,68,54,048.44 to Rs. 2,38,42,702.42 and the balance amount of Rs. 45,30,11,346.02 was disallowed by holding that it is not an allowable expenditure either as bad debt