DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

68,613 as paid in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act and he accordingly disallowed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of its contention that the payment in question were below Rs.20,000 on different

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

sections": [ "Sec 36(1)(iii)", "Sec 41(1)", "Sec 68", "Sec 37(1)", "Sec 201(1A)", "Sec 35D" ], "issues

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ARCHEESH HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, K V RANGA REDDY

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 35D of the Act. 9. The Ld. CIT-DR further referring to the additions made towards share capital of Rs. 4.80 crores u/s 68

FARMAX INDIA LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Farmax India Limited Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(3) 4Th Floor, Alluri Trade Centre I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards Bhagayanagar Colony Masab Tank Opp.Kphb Colony Hyderabad Kukatpally Hyderabad-500 072

section 35D(2) of the I.T.Act. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, the same is upheld. The grounds raised by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 14. Grounds of appeal No. 4 and 5 relate to the order of the ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1),HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. FARMAX INDIA LTD., HYD, R.R.DIST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Farmax India Limited Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(3) 4Th Floor, Alluri Trade Centre I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards Bhagayanagar Colony Masab Tank Opp.Kphb Colony Hyderabad Kukatpally Hyderabad-500 072

section 35D(2) of the I.T.Act. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, the same is upheld. The grounds raised by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 14. Grounds of appeal No. 4 and 5 relate to the order of the ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the addition

SRI ABHISHEK STEEL AND POWER LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Abhishek Steel & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Power Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pan – Aacca9140Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2021

68 for additions made to fixed assets of Rs. 5,20,482/-, as the assessee has duly produced all the necessary documents evidencing the claim and addition made to fixed assets. 21. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by disallowance of ROC fee paid to the tune of Rs. 3,44,340/- u/s 35D

C.M.D. RATNAKAR DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD vs. JASPER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

35D of the Act and to allow 1/5th of the Page 3 of 17 ITA No. 781/Hyd/2020 & total fee paid for increase in Technical Ground authorized share capital. 5. (a) The CIT (A) has erred in not deleting the disallowance on Depreciation of Rs. 13,38,390/- on commercial Trucks. (b) The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact

JASPER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

35D of the Act and to allow 1/5th of the Page 3 of 17 ITA No. 781/Hyd/2020 & total fee paid for increase in Technical Ground authorized share capital. 5. (a) The CIT (A) has erred in not deleting the disallowance on Depreciation of Rs. 13,38,390/- on commercial Trucks. (b) The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD vs. QUARK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/S.Quark Enterprises 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10Th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032

68,80,511)x10= Rs.10.305 25,60,00,010 Premium per share FMV - Paid up Share value =Rs.10.305 - RS.10 = RS.0.305 6.2 He accordingly held that the assessee is eligible to receive a premium Rs.0.305/ - per share only whereas the assessee received an amount of Rs.190/ - per share as "Premium" which is Rs.189.695/ - (Rs.190-0.305) higher than eligible premium as calculated. Hence