MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 14. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the conditions required for invoking provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are satisfied. Further, the appellant company

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

8) CIT vs. Atul Engineering Udyog [2014] 51 taxmann.com 569 (Allahabad) (PB-I: Pg 94-96). 14. Per contra, Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR supporting the order of LD.CIT(A) submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the conditions required for invoking provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are satisfied. Further, the appellant company

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

2)(iiihk) and (iiihl) of the Act. (para 16) We are in agreement with such observations and findings of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal and while respectfully following the same, we hold that inasmuch as the assessee satisfied the conditions of section 80G of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section

ANJANEE VIJETHA KASTURI,KURNOOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D of the Act etc., and, therefore, merely because a particular section was not specifically invoked, it does not change the character of being the unexplained or undisclosed. On this premise, learned CIT(A) held that the Page 2 of 8

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 80IA(8) and mandates of judicial authorities. 4b. By rejecting the comparable market rate for procurement of power from Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) and determining the Arm’s Length Price at Rs. 2.97/- per unit, being the median of the various sale prices charged by the power unit to the independent third parties

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

8(1),\nHyderabad, ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024.\n17. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue,\nand find that the CIT(Appeals) had deleted the disallowance of the claim\nof the assessee company for deduction under section 80G of the Act of\nRs. 1.88 crore (approx) by following the decision of the ITAT,\nHyd erabad in Optum

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IRFANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED ZEESHANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

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

Bench: Us:

2) of Section 92F, where the goods or services are transferred in specified domestic transactions referred to in Section 92BA of the Act. We are of the firm conviction that now when the chilling units (i.e., eligible units) had carried out the inter-unit transfer of milk to the processing units considering the “market value” of the subject

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

2 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee (Vendee) and vendor, both have filed affidavits regarding the non-payment and non-receipt of money on account of sale transaction

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

2 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee (Vendee) and vendor, both have filed affidavits regarding the non-payment and non-receipt of money on account of sale transaction

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

2 of 42 ITA Nos 164, 194 and 195 of 2024 GRR Holdings 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee (Vendee) and vendor, both have filed affidavits regarding the non-payment and non-receipt of money on account of sale transaction

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) of the 1.T. Act. The AO has noted that he is not convinced with the reasons for handing over coaching centers to JV and VEMPL. The AO further noted that the appellant has incurred a loss during the immediately preceding year and also during the present

KYORI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kyori Infrastructure Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P Murali & Co., Ca, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Samajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Bala Krishna Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.263 Of The Act Of The Pr. Cit-2, Hyderabad Dated 26.2.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Infrastructure Activity. It Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 30.9.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 27.12.2017 With The Assessed Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. P A G E 1 | 11 Assessment Year : 2015-16

68,77,828.24 Less: sale proceeds (30.79 Rs. 11,92,18,880 Rs. 38,72,000.00 ACRES) Gain / Loss Rs.-30,05,828.24 In our case the provision u/s.45(2) cannot be applicable because die each acre land sold at capital loss of Rs.30,05,828.24/-the total loss for sold the P a g e 5 | 11 Assessment Year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. DEVENDER RAO GORUKANTI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Acit,Cc-2(2) Vs Devender Rao Gourkanti Room No.616,6Th Floor . H.No.8-2-293/82/Nl/231 Aaykar Bhawan Mla Mp Colony Basheerbagh Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 033 Pan : Akepg7452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2021-22. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Partner In M/S. Yashoda Helathcare Services Pvt.Ltd & Derives Partner’S Remuneration & Interest On Capital. He Filed His Original Return Of Income On 28.12.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,56,33,070/- A Search & Seizure Operation U/S. 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of Yashoda Group On 22.12.2020, During Which The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered. In Response To Notice U/S. 153A Of The I.T.Act,The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Admitting Additional

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

ANKITJAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our above observation

68,750\n16-05-2019\n1,30,350\n17,88,750\n14.89.150\nCheque\nCheque\n1st Floor\n12,08,250\n10,24,630\n2nd Floor\n10,53,000\n8,83,220\n22,61,250\n19,07,850\nTotal recd\n40,50,000\n33,97,000\n7. From the above, it is clear that the assessee had purchased the property under\nquestion

ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. MADHUSUDAN RAO LAGADAPATI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

68 or 69, in our opinion, have limited application in the case of non- resident." 18. Likewise, in the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy V. ACIT, Central Circle -II(2), Chennai [008 ITR (Trib) 18 (Chennai)], Chennai Bench has held as under: "A non-resident person having money in foreign country could not be called upon to pay income