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

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

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,02,280/- whereas the income of the assessee was computed after assessment at Rs.29,55,62,962/-as per the order passed u/s 143(3). Interestingly after the search was carried out the assessee had filed the return of income declaring ‘nil’ income and sought a refund of Rs. 40,75,88,535/-. For all the three years

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,02,280/- whereas the income of the assessee was computed after assessment at Rs.29,55,62,962/-as per the order passed u/s 143(3). Interestingly after the search was carried out the assessee had filed the return of income declaring ‘nil’ income and sought a refund of Rs. 40,75,88,535/-. For all the three years

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,02,280/- whereas the income of the assessee was computed after assessment at Rs.29,55,62,962/-as per the order passed u/s 143(3). Interestingly after the search was carried out the assessee had filed the return of income declaring ‘nil’ income and sought a refund of Rs. 40,75,88,535/-. For all the three years

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

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.:

264 ITR 673 (MAO.) iii) Vashti Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Del. )(2010-TIOL-642-ITA ,DEL) 8.2. In the case of CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (supra), the following ratio was laid down:- "Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

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.:

264 ITR 673 (MAO.) iii) Vashti Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Del. )(2010-TIOL-642-ITA ,DEL) 8.2. In the case of CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (supra), the following ratio was laid down:- "Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

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 of Kapil Consultancy Services Ltd and in which the assessee was also covered. The assessment has been subsequently re-opened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the reasons recorded

NAVEEN KUMAR SRIRAM,MEDAK vs. ITO, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) had also not granted the relief to the assessee. 3 Naveenkumar Sriram 4. Feeling aggrieved

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

68,997/-. 2.1 After filing the return in response to notice u/s 148, assessee requested for reasons for reopening the assessment which were communicated to the assessee by AO's letter dated 22.12.2017. Reason for reopening the assessment is stated to be as under: "As per the Schedule 8 in respect of investment an amount

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

68,997/-. 2.1 After filing the return in response to notice u/s 148, assessee requested for reasons for reopening the assessment which were communicated to the assessee by AO's letter dated 22.12.2017. Reason for reopening the assessment is stated to be as under: "As per the Schedule 8 in respect of investment an amount

KASUSALYA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR 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’Ble

264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is available in the assessment order, is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, before initiating the proceedings under Section

KASUSALYA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR 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’Ble

264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is available in the assessment order, is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, before initiating the proceedings under Section

YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

264 of the Act. ITA No.1119/Hyd./2018 A.Y.: 2013-14 Sh. Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy 4.2. The Pr.CIT, however, was not convinced with assessee’s contentions. She held that both the provisions of section 45(2) and Sec.2(47)(iv) are applicable and as the capital assets have been converted into stock-in-trade, the loss arising therefrom

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ZELAN PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Zelan Projects Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 17(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacz2265B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

section 40(a)(ia) does not arise. Further, the liability created during the year, has not been claimed as an expenditure for the purpose of income tax and has been charged below the line. In view of the same the addition of Rs. 27,61,68,174/- is hereby deleted and the ground nos. 6 is allowed accordingly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD vs. VISION VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

68,403/-( 265182735/ - 25,39,14,332) which requires to be added back to the total income.” 8. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the merits of the case had held that the above said order cannot be passed under section 154 of the Act and had allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

264/- which was spent for the aims and that there is no excess of receipts over expenditure either to be taxed or to be exempted. 5.2. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has duly complied with the provisions of Sec 11 of the Act in all the previous years