SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

194C aggregating over Rs. 3.2 crores and 8 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO time deposits of Rs. 19.54 lakhs were reflected in the 26AS statement, but remained unaccounted. The information clearly constitutes "tangible material" justifying reopening as held in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [(1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC)) and ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

transfer). It was submitted that the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee was merely acting as civil contractor and not a developer as the funds for raising the agricultural facilities were provided by the State Government and further, it was mentioned that the assessee was having the mobilization advances of 5% is not correct . It was submitted

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer). It was submitted that the findings of\nthe Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee was merely acting as civil\ncontractor and not a developer as the funds for raising the\nagricultural facilities were provided by the State Government and\nfurther, it was mentioned that the assessee was having the\nmobilization advances of 5% is not correct It was submitted

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer). It was submitted that the findings of\nthe Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee was merely acting as civil\ncontractor and not a developer as the funds for raising the\nagricultural facilities were provided by the State Government and\nfurther, it was mentioned that the assessee was having the\nmobilization advances of 5% is not correct It was submitted

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer). It was submitted that the findings of\nthe Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee was merely acting as civil\ncontractor and not a developer as the funds for raising the\nagricultural facilities were provided by the State Government and\nfurther, it was mentioned that the assessee was having the\nmobilization advances of 5% is not correct It was submitted

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

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

194C, 194H and 194J of the IT Act, and since the assessee failed to deduct tax from these payments, he held that such expenditure is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 Further, the A.O also observed that the assessee has made a provision of Rs.51,91,186/- towards scheme discount i.e the additional discount to the customers who participated

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

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

194C, 194H and 194J of the IT Act, and since the assessee failed to deduct tax from these payments, he held that such expenditure is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 Further, the A.O also observed that the assessee has made a provision of Rs.51,91,186/- towards scheme discount i.e the additional discount to the customers who participated

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

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

194C, 194H and 194J of the IT Act, and since the assessee failed to deduct tax from these payments, he held that such expenditure is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 Further, the A.O also observed that the assessee has made a provision of Rs.51,91,186/- towards scheme discount i.e the additional discount to the customers who participated