P AMRUTH PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

P AMRUTHA PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

SRINIVAS UPPU,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T. Act. He worked the total cash loan pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 at Rs.3,00,00,046/- and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,53,21,500/- in the hands of the assessee being 50% of the same. We find the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

AJAZ FAROOQI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

sections of 68 and 69A of the Act for the single addition in para 7.0 of the assessment order. Further, in the case of Kermix Micro Systems (India) Limited (Supra), there was no retraction from the admission made, where as in the appellant's case, there is a retraction-affidavit filed. Thus the revenue's reliance on the above

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

211(3C) (Which continues to be applicable in terms of General Circular 15/2013 dated September 13, 2013 of the Ministry of Corporate affairs in respect of Section 133 of the companies Act, 1961.” (b) The company also manufactures products such as electronic boards and printer circuits by importing raw materials and holding inventory, as apparent from Page

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

68 (SC)  V Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT/EPT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC)  ITO Vs. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad [1989] 176 ITR 529 (SC) 14. The learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC), and ITO Vs. Mewalal

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

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,444/- without adjusting brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier assessment years. 9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO is not justified in considering short credit of TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter

DCIT., (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BALAJEE ARUN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandy. Commissioner Of Vs Balajee Arun Educational Income Tax (Exemptions) Society Hyderabad Circle, Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaefb 8808 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,660. However, he found that there was a shortfall of Rs.15.00 lakhs, found from the analysis of invoices, cash bank balances and fee account. He Page 6 of 12 ITA No 1919 of 2014 Balajee Arun Educational Society Secunderabad. accordingly made the disallowance and the consequential addition. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

68 (as discussed above) Total INCOME ASSESSED = 3,12,32,700/- Agricultural Income Returned = 0 -= Income on special rate (Capital Gain Tax) of Rs. 93,69,810/- Tax on normal rate on income Total Tax there on = 93,69,810/- Less : Rebate on Agri. Income = 0 Page 7 of 31 Add surcharge @ 0% 0 Total Tax (Tax+Surcharge

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

68 (as discussed above) Total INCOME ASSESSED = 3,12,32,700/- Agricultural Income Returned = 0 -= Income on special rate (Capital Gain Tax) of Rs. 93,69,810/- Tax on normal rate on income Total Tax there on = 93,69,810/- Less : Rebate on Agri. Income = 0 Page 7 of 31 Add surcharge @ 0% 0 Total Tax (Tax+Surcharge

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

68 (as discussed above) Total INCOME ASSESSED = 3,12,32,700/- Agricultural Income Returned = 0 -= Income on special rate (Capital Gain Tax) of Rs. 93,69,810/- Tax on normal rate on income Total Tax there on = 93,69,810/- Less : Rebate on Agri. Income = 0 Page 7 of 31 Add surcharge @ 0% 0 Total Tax (Tax+Surcharge

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

68 (as discussed above) Total INCOME ASSESSED = 3,12,32,700/- Agricultural Income Returned = 0 -= Income on special rate (Capital Gain Tax) of Rs. 93,69,810/- Tax on normal rate on income Total Tax there on = 93,69,810/- Less : Rebate on Agri. Income = 0 Page 7 of 31 Add surcharge @ 0% 0 Total Tax (Tax+Surcharge

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

68 (as discussed above) Total INCOME ASSESSED = 3,12,32,700/- Agricultural Income Returned = 0 -= Income on special rate (Capital Gain Tax) of Rs. 93,69,810/- Tax on normal rate on income Total Tax there on = 93,69,810/- Less : Rebate on Agri. Income = 0 Page 7 of 31 Add surcharge @ 0% 0 Total Tax (Tax+Surcharge

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

68 (as discussed above) Total INCOME ASSESSED = 3,12,32,700/- Agricultural Income Returned = 0 -= Income on special rate (Capital Gain Tax) of Rs. 93,69,810/- Tax on normal rate on income Total Tax there on = 93,69,810/- Less : Rebate on Agri. Income = 0 Page 7 of 31 Add surcharge @ 0% 0 Total Tax (Tax+Surcharge

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

68 (as discussed above) Total INCOME ASSESSED = 3,12,32,700/- Agricultural Income Returned = 0 -= Income on special rate (Capital Gain Tax) of Rs. 93,69,810/- Tax on normal rate on income Total Tax there on = 93,69,810/- Less : Rebate on Agri. Income = 0 Page 7 of 31 Add surcharge @ 0% 0 Total Tax (Tax+Surcharge