RAMESH SISTLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, thereby\ndetermining the total income at Rs.13,00,94,230/-.\n\n5.\nAggrieved by the assessment order of the Ld. AO, the\nassessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, since the\nassessee repeatedly sought adjournments in response to notices\nissued by the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed by the Ld.\nCIT

VARDHMAN (MAHILA) CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

68,61,606/- in Schedule- 11 of the balance sheet which according to him should have been taken as income. But according to the assessee, its accounting policy was as per RBI guidelines and Section 430

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

430\n11,51,530\n20\n289\n5,031\n9,574\n62,060\n38,23,960\n21\n232\n4,731\n11,

CONCERD DRUGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Concord Drugs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-1(2), Pan: Aaacc 8171 D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Smt Nivedita Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2019 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

68,96,480 11 M/s. Samir Pharma 72,95,430 Total: 10,18,19,329 6. The assessee further argued before the Ld.CIT(A) that the sale arising out of the entire purchase has been credited to the Profit & Loss A/c hence, addition made for Rs.10,18,19,329/- is unjustifiable. The Ld.CIT(A) after examining the issue

GANGADHAR AGARWAL,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D. The same was\namended by the 2nd Amendment Act; w.e.f. 01.04.2017, enhancing the rate to 60%. Hence there\nwas no new liability created and the rate of tax merely stood enhanced which is applicable to the\nassessments carried on in that year. The enhanced rate applies from the commencement of the\n assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

68 of the Act. 4.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding all the documents/evidence already on record, which proves the nature of the transaction as well as its genuineness as a loan given by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries to settle their subsisting

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

68 of the Act. 4.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding all the documents/evidence already on record, which proves the nature of the transaction as well as its genuineness as a loan given by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries to settle their subsisting

PASUPARTHY SILKS ,TIRUPATI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

430/-. Learned Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 75,08,420/- by way of an order dated 11/3/2014 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) by making an addition of Rs. 2,80,598/- towards the deficit in cash, Rs. 29,54,206/- towards deficit in stock

LATEEF ABDUL MOHAMMED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18

430 - 15,95,325 Nov.16 till 15,95,325 26,05,083 14,00,000 72,000 - 28,60,665 8.11.2016 1,37,22,944 4,53,67,249.60 2,60,70,800 3,30,78,914 - 1,57,21,920 15. He accordingly submitted that the cash deposits made by the assessee in the Bank A/c during the period

NARAYANDAS KISHANDAS L/R SUNIL NARANG,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

430/-, which includes additional income of Rs.89,18,100/- offered towards cash found during the course of search. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer assessed the additional income offered by the assessee towards cash found during the course of search u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 3. The assessee

SHARE MICROFIN LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

section 41(1). Therefore, the loan waiver cannot be taxed as business profits. 9. Referring to the decision of the Vizag Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Sri Vasavi Polymers (2020) 117 Taxmann.com 236, he submitted that the Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra

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

430 25,24,99,400 3 ITA 1270/Hyd/2019 6. The AO noted that the assessee submitted a document entitled Report on Valuation of Equity Shares as a valuation report according to which the assessee is a 100% holding company of M/s . CallHealth Services Private Limited and that the assessee company has no other business activities as on date. He noted

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

430/-. Subsequently, the case of the 6 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny (CASS) under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O. made a reference u/s 92CA of the Act to the DCIT, T.P.-1, Hyderabad, for determination

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

430 [2008] 303 ITR 256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

430 [2008] 303 ITR 256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

430 [2008] 303 ITR 256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

430 [2008] 303 ITR 256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

430 [2008] 303 ITR 256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view