PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act which are mandatory and consequential in nature. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. Page 41 of 82 ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) 75. Ground of appeal 1 & 2 raised by the revenue relates to the order

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. PUJALA MAHESH BABU , RANGA REDDY

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act which are mandatory and consequential in nature. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. Page 41 of 82 ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) 75. Ground of appeal 1 & 2 raised by the revenue relates to the order

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act which are mandatory and consequential in nature. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. Page 41 of 82 ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) 75. Ground of appeal 1 & 2 raised by the revenue relates to the order

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act which are mandatory and consequential in nature. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. Page 41 of 82 ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) 75. Ground of appeal 1 & 2 raised by the revenue relates to the order

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

7. The learned JM, on the other hand, while differing with the view taken by the learned AM, held that section 32AD(1) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 to be effective from 1.4.2016. According to him, the reading of the provisions makes it plainly clear that for claiming the additional investment allowance in respect

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

94,613\n33,83,28,070 30,77,553\n33,83,28,070\n13\nITA.No.29/Hyd./2025\nS\nno Sales\n1 Exempted Sales\n2 Sales @ 5%\n3\nSales @ 14.5%\nTotal\nTurnovers as\nper VAT 200 Tax\n33,71,06,259\n2,25,24,572 11,26,228\n1,39,34,552\n37,35,65,383\nAs per Books\nof accounts

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

68 is not applicable. 17. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that entire profit will be arrived when the venture is completed and as all the lands have not been sold the profit cannot be arrived. 18. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

68 is not applicable. 17. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that entire profit will be arrived when the venture is completed and as all the lands have not been sold the profit cannot be arrived. 18. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

68 is not applicable. 17. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that entire profit will be arrived when the venture is completed and as all the lands have not been sold the profit cannot be arrived. 18. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,32,843 from export turnover not `derived `from export activity, without considering the foreign exchange fluctuation loss and considering only the net foreign exchange gain of Rs.63,66,53,406. 23. The Hon'ble CIT(A) in para 12 of its order held that the assessee had loss in realisation of export proceeds due to foreign exchange fluctuation

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

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

94,00,000/- are disallowed U/s.40A(3) and is added to the total income of the assessee. 14.1 On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue at pages 70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

section 153C did not empower the A.O. to make assessment for the A.Ys beyond six years preceding the financial year in which the search was made. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on addition of Rs. 3,09,94,700/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act as unexplained deposits in the assessment order made u/s 153C

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

section 153C did not empower the A.O. to make assessment for the A.Ys beyond six years preceding the financial year in which the search was made. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on addition of Rs. 3,09,94,700/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act as unexplained deposits in the assessment order made u/s 153C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

section 153C did not empower the A.O. to make assessment for the A.Ys beyond six years preceding the financial year in which the search was made. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on addition of Rs. 3,09,94,700/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act as unexplained deposits in the assessment order made u/s 153C

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

section 153C did not empower the A.O. to make assessment for the A.Ys beyond six years preceding the financial year in which the search was made. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on addition of Rs. 3,09,94,700/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act as unexplained deposits in the assessment order made u/s 153C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

section 153C did not empower the A.O. to make assessment for the A.Ys beyond six years preceding the financial year in which the search was made. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on addition of Rs. 3,09,94,700/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act as unexplained deposits in the assessment order made u/s 153C

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

section 153C did not empower the A.O. to make assessment for the A.Ys beyond six years preceding the financial year in which the search was made. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on addition of Rs. 3,09,94,700/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act as unexplained deposits in the assessment order made u/s 153C