ITO., WARD 14(1), HYDERABAD vs. JOSHITA INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act. The A.O. further noted that although the assessee has furnished relevant details of commission expenses of Rs. 2,05,32,164/-, but the fact remains that the commission expenditure incurred by the which comes to 21.23% of the total sales. Therefore, it was observed that the same is very high keeping in view

BALA REDDY GOPU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

292 (SC). The same was forwarded to AO vide letter dated 03/03/2016 to submit report and also to submit a report on disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, as the CIT(A) had noticed that assessee has earned exempt income. AO submitted remand report dated 16/08/2016 and the AO had reiterated the factual report submitted on 23/12/2015 and distinguished

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.29/Hyd/2025

292 14,171 3,824 2,690 5,935 23,05,450 25 1,722 9,315 1,601 1,

SUJATHA KANCHARLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the A.O. while making the assessment observed that the assessee during the demonetization period had made cash deposits of Rs. 96 lacs in her bank account no. 06422560001820 with HDFC Bank Limited, Branch: Sanjeev Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. On being queried, the assessee had claimed that the cash deposits made

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

292/- and while doing so, assessing officer made addition of Rs.1,12,68,403/- being the difference between From 26AS and P&L Account of the assessee company. Page 2 of 6 3. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who granted part relief to the assessee. 4. Feeling aggrieved with

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,75,000/- towards ROC fee, the CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4.2 As regards deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the AO denied the deduction u/s 80IA from the gross total income, while the CIT(A) allowed the same following the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2146/Hyd/2017

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,75,000/- towards ROC fee, the CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4.2 As regards deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the AO denied the deduction u/s 80IA from the gross total income, while the CIT(A) allowed the same following the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2146/Hyd/2017

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

section 144B of the Act and is liable to be quashed. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Panel erred in upholding the action of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO') / Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') in proposing an adjustment of INR 1,29,68,545 to the international

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

68 taxman.com 104 5. Hon’ble High court Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. United Mercantile co.(p.) Ltd. 27 taxman 404 6. Hon’ble Kolkata Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. 53 taxmann.com 292 7. Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. 48 tamxnan.com