ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

MADHAVA REDDY BADDEVOLU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

RAGHUNATH REDDY GANGARAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

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

KONATHAM KOTIREDDY,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Konatham Kotireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Atupk6883E Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By: Shri Vamseedhar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr)

section 271B of the Act and had mentioned that the total sales/turnover/gross receipts of the assessee during the period under consideration was worked out to Page 5 of 7 ITA 245 of 2023 Konatham Kotireddy Rs.2,22,12,776/- and therefore, the Assessing Officer had imposed penalty for Rs.1,11,065/-. The learned CIT (A), despite the reliance

CHANDRALOK HOTELS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc 9912 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

245 (Madras), the High Court held that the AO is bound to follow the mandate of law and if the assessee has not availed the opportunity as provided under Section 50C of the Act, there was no option available with the AO. Considering above the grounds of appeal 5 to 7 of the appellant are dismissed." :- 13 -: Chandra

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. L.RAJALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

68,38,89,660/-. The difference of Rs. 177,38,110/- was added in the hands of the assessee. 14. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO in so far as applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act were to be applied. With regard to the next issue of indexation of cost of acquisition from

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

68,38,89,660/-. The difference of Rs. 177,38,110/- was added in the hands of the assessee. 14. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO in so far as applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act were to be applied. With regard to the next issue of indexation of cost of acquisition from

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

68,38,89,660/-. The difference of Rs. 177,38,110/- was added in the hands of the assessee. 14. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO in so far as applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act were to be applied. With regard to the next issue of indexation of cost of acquisition from

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

68,38,89,660/-. The difference of Rs. 177,38,110/- was added in the hands of the assessee. 14. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO in so far as applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act were to be applied. With regard to the next issue of indexation of cost of acquisition from

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