GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, if requisite conditions are fulfilled and it is inconceivable that in presence of Page 10 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings such specific provisions, a similar power is available to first appellate authority. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the order

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, if requisite conditions are fulfilled and it is inconceivable that in presence of Page 10 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings such specific provisions, a similar power is available to first appellate authority. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the order

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5 (1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,869/- vide his order dated 31.01.2018. Later on, Ld. PCIT called for the record for examination u/s. 263 of the Act. After perusal of the record, Ld. PCIT held that the amount of Rs.340.45 Crores paid to Pfizer is a capital expenditure and is not for the business expediency of ASPL. On the aspect of the liquidated damages

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the Act on 29.03.2006, wherein\nhe estimated 5% profit on the offshore contract receipts of Rs.9,68

RK INFRA & ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 R.K. Infra & Engineering India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr9570Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.11.2022

section 263 of the Act stands ousted and accordingly the impugned order passed deserves to be cancelled.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in the business of civil works and filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 26.09.2015 declaring income of Rs. Nil under normal provisions

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us:

263 of the Act to dislodge the possible and plausible view that was arrived at by the AO after carrying out necessary verifications regarding the allowability of the claim of the assessee company for deduction of bad debts 18.1. On merits, we find that the assessee company had written off the bad debts in its books of account

GOPAL REDDY GATTU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD

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

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the relevant assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 26.12.2022. Admittedly, the assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2022 and determined the total income at Rs. 13,58,63,970/-, which includes sum of Rs. 13,53,68

AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

263 of the Act. We hereby deem it apposite to cull out the\nSCN, dated 17.03.2025, which reads as under:\nSHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961\nM/s. Amararaja Power Systems Limited (hereinafter referred as 'the assessee')\nfiled return of income for the A.Y.2020-21 on 28.11.2020 declaring a total income of\nRs.35,78,29,240/-. The case

INDEED INDIA OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the assessment year 2021-2022 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.943 & 1359/Hyd/2024 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Indeed India Operations The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-2(1), Hyderabad – 500 081. Hyderabad. Telangana Pan Aadci5931J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Mahima Goud, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

68,62,731 towards interest on outstanding receivables. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Ld. TPO, in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis/study prepared by the Appellant and conducting 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

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

263 that it bears importance to state here that the investor companies of shares were interested to subscribe shares of the assessee company as, according to them, the assessee company had prospect in future is a plain lie. (c) The blank share application forms etc. tabulated above go to show that the alleged application for shares and the alleged allotment

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

263 that it bears importance to state here that the investor companies of shares were interested to subscribe shares of the assessee company as, according to them, the assessee company had prospect in future is a plain lie. (c) The blank share application forms etc. tabulated above go to show that the alleged application for shares and the alleged allotment

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 when the Assessing Officer has duly carried out the inquiry by issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act which were duly replied by the assessee by furnishing the relevant record and details. It was contended by the assessee that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

68 & 69 of the Act were deleted by the Ld.\nCIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Vide its orders in Appeal\nno.10421/2019-20 dt. 21.04.2022 and ITA No. 146/Hyd/2022 dt.\n19.07.2022.\n9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that several Judicial\nrulings and Circulars of the CBDT state that minor filing delays\nshould not deny tax exemptions

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

68 & 69 of the Act were deleted by the Ld.\nCIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Vide its orders in Appeal\nno.10421/2019-20 dt. 21.04.2022 and ITA No. 146/Hyd/2022 dt.\n19.07.2022.\n9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that several Judicial\nrulings and Circulars of the CBDT state that minor filing delays\nshould not deny tax exemptions

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

68 & 69 of the Act were deleted by the Ld.\nCIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Vide its orders in Appeal\nno.10421/2019-20 dt. 21.04.2022 and ITA No. 146/Hyd/2022 dt.\n19.07.2022.\n9.\nThe learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that several Judicial\nrulings and Circulars of the CBDT state that minor filing delays\nshould not deny tax exemptions

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 had been met by the assessee. 30. Further, we are of the view that the decisions cited by the Ld. CIT (A) and those cited by the ld. AR, the facts are not identical with the facts of the assessee as discussed herein below. (i) CIT vs. NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd reported in 263

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 had been met by the assessee. 30. Further, we are of the view that the decisions cited by the Ld. CIT (A) and those cited by the ld. AR, the facts are not identical with the facts of the assessee as discussed herein below. (i) CIT vs. NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd reported in 263