ACIT, CC-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. LEPL PROJECTS LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

234 of the paper book), which is to the following effect : “Addition of Rs.116,04,55,413/- made u/s 68 of the Act on account of excess receipts from contract works: During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to submit the nature of real estate and construction activities and details of revenue generated from and related expenditure

VENKATA NAGARAJU DASAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is otherwise misplaced, misconceived and untenable. 5. That while making the addition the learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the explanation tendered by the appellant that deposits were out of saving from agricultural income of his family members given to him for medical treatment of his father and as such sums could

UJWALA PUBLICATIONS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,WARANGAL vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ujwala Publications & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Developers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Warangal. Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacu6544J (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 31.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.09.2024

68,234/-. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on 07-04-2017 on the group

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

68,697/-) contending that no evidence in support of these\nexpenses were produced by the assessee. As there was difference in\nthe value of sale consideration shown by the assessee and the value as\nper SDV, at the request of the assessee, the Ld. AO referred the issue\nto the Learned Departmental Valuation Officer (“Ld. DVO\") for\nvaluation

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.

234/- towards Postage & courier charges. 32. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 4,55,600/- towards Recruitment expenses. 33. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made

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.

234/- towards Postage & courier charges. 32. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 4,55,600/- towards Recruitment expenses. 33. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made

PITTI ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Pitti Electrical Vs Income Tax Officer Equipment Private Ltd Ward 16 ( 4 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccp8334P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Pitti Electrical Equipment Income Tax, Circle 16(2) Private Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccp8334P (Appellant) (Respondent)

234 and from the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs to Smt. Madhuri S. Pitti towards business administration consultancy fee for the year from which TDS of Rs.60,000 was also made. Observing that she is a family member of the promoter, he invoked provisions of section

SOMAYAJULU ANNAPPA MANGIPUDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INT. TAX-1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Somayajulu Mangipudi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O. P. Murali & Co., (International Chartered Accountants, Taxation – 1), 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500082. Pan : Afepm7623L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Ravinder. Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2022

section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the present case as the assessee is a non-resident Indian, which is clear from the assessment order. For the above said purpose, ld. AR relied on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Rajeev Suresh Ghai reported in (2021) 132 taxmann.com 234

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the A

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

SECTION 234(3) OF THE ACT: 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A 0 erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying interest uls 2348 of the Act and the said levy of interest being Wholly Unjustified, ought

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the A

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

SECTION 234(3) OF THE ACT: 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A 0 erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying interest uls 2348 of the Act and the said levy of interest being Wholly Unjustified, ought

BHARATHI CEMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bharathi Cement Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr3079G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Kalyanasundaram, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2023

68,330/-claimed by the assessee under section 80-IA of the Act in respect of the power generation through thermal sources by adopting Rs. 8.74 per unit as ALP for supply of power to its chemical division and other AEs. It is not in dispute that the state power distribution company charged Rs. 8.98 per unit from

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

68, in relation to the transfer of\na capital asset, means the full value of the\nconsideration received or accruing as a result of\nthe transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any\nexpenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in\nconnection with such transfer.\n(2) Where the assessee purchases, within the period of 69[two years] after\nthe date

JASPER AUTO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 0196P (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,33,OOO/- is in the nature of consideration received towards tr:msfer of self generated goodwill and, therefore, the same is not taxable is untenable and liable for dismissal. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on the issue are dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

68] had taken a similar view even after the amended 147/148 sections came into force. The Gujarat High Court further held in the case second referred above that mere change of opinion is not sufficient to reopen the assessment and reassessment was not valid. Therefore we submit that since all the information relating to depreciation on investments were there

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

68] had taken a similar view even after the amended 147/148 sections came into force. The Gujarat High Court further held in the case second referred above that mere change of opinion is not sufficient to reopen the assessment and reassessment was not valid. Therefore we submit that since all the information relating to depreciation on investments were there

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,016/-. ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page 7 5. The assessee raised as many as 11 grounds in this appeal. During the appellate proceedings the Ld. AR withdraw Ground No.9, hence the same is not required to be separately adjudicated. Further Ground No.8 of the assessee relates to initiation of penalty proceedings under section

DILEEP KUMAR SAKAMURI CHENCHU VENKATA,SRIKALAHASTI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

68,428/- as the assessee’s income from other sources. 5. Thereafter, the assessee furnished before the AO documentary evidence in the course of the assessment proceedings, viz. the bank 4 Dileep Kumar Sakamuri Chenchu Venkata vs. ITO statements, cash-flow statements, computation of income, balance sheet, sales/purchase ledgers and an amended partnership deed, but did not furnish corroborative documents

ACIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. DST WORLDWIDE SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed, while cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahasstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Dst Worldwide Income Tax, Circle 17(1) Services India Pvt. Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaaci7097L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,353/- as Communication expenses ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer had rightly taken the amount of Rs. 39,03,927/- towards communication expenses debited under the head 'Internation Privately Leased Circuit and Internet Charges. I Page 2 of 7 ITA No 291 and CO No 24 of 2015 DST Worldwide Services India P Ltd Hyderabad