INDEED INDIA OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the\n

68,62,731 towards interest on outstanding receivables.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in\nupholding/confirming the action of the Ld. TPO, in rejecting the\ntransfer pricing analysis/study prepared by the Appellant and\nconducting fresh benchmarking, without appreciating that none

R.A.K CERAMICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SAMALKOT vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our aforesaid observations

68,545 to the international transactions pertaining\nto purchase of raw materials/finished goods and sale of finished goods and INR 8,13,72,292\ntowards payment of royalty by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprises ('AEs').\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO / Hon'ble\nPanel erred

LAKSHMIRAMANA BANDARU,KADAPA vs. ITO., WARD-1, KADAPA

Bench: Us:

254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 30.04.2021. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1). The addition of Rs. 40,61,283/- to the returned income is incorrect and not justified when the appellant has proved the sources and explained the same to the assessing officer

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

section 68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on account of notional gain arising out of the foreign exchange fluctuation relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

section 68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on account of notional gain arising out of the foreign exchange fluctuation relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

CALLIDUSCLOUD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

68,544/- by making addition towards TP adjustment suggested by the learned TPO. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel challenging the TP adjustments made by the learned TPO. The Hon’ble DRP, vide its directions issued under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 11.09.2024, partly allowed the objections of the assessee

Y RADHA KUMAR REDDY (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the identity and creditworthiness of loan creditors and genuineness of the transactions in respect of six parties, the details of which are already given in Paragraph 2 of this order. We find the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition

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

VENU MYNENI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-II, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

68 cannot be invoked in respect of cash deposits in bank account. Assessee also relied on decisions to contend that gift from father cannot be taxed as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Assessee also contended that withdrawals from NRE account were deposited into the NRO Account. Another contention of assessee was that there

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

254\n73,770\n85,75,670\n28\n229 1,533\n5,681\n1,02,510\n16,66,110\n29\n458 15,134\n16,010\n70,380\n96,96,380\n30\n31\n572 4,136\n8,957\n59,830\n35,95,530\nTotal\n14,305 1,50,713\n2,28,458\n18,14,310\n11,43,21,610\n16\nITA.No.29/Hyd

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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GOOD HEALTH AGRO TECH PVT.LTD,, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

sections": [ "68", "254(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the share application money received from various companies is genuine and its source

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , HYDERABAD

254 of the\nIncome Tax Act on 04.04.2013, determining the total incomes as\n₹3,69,73,210/-, ₹9,44,42,976/-, and ₹6,93,75,033/- for the\n Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06, respectively, by\ndenying the deduction under section 801A of the Act.\n4.\nAggrieved with such assessment orders, assessee filed\nappeals

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

254 of the\nIncome Tax Act on 04.04.2013, determining the total incomes as\n₹3,69,73,210/-, ₹9,44,42,976/-, and ₹6,93,75,033/- for the\n Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06, respectively, by\ndenying the deduction under section 80IA of the Act.\n4. Aggrieved with such assessment orders, assessee filed\nappeals

BOLLAM SAMPATH KUMAR JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bollam Sampath Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Jewellers (P) Ltd Circle 3(2) Warangal Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb4496H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.Th Vijaya Lakshmi Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.04.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Jewellery. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 8.11.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.35,93,490/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny For Verifying The Following: “High Revenue From Operations (Including Other Income) & No Scrutiny In Preceding 5 A.Ys.

section 68 cannot be invoked for making G.P addition. Further, the assessee also maintained stock register and no defects were found in the books of account either by the Auditor or by the Assessing Officer. Page 6 of 16 ITA No 254