ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

transfer of these shares as per the recomputation statement enclosed as Annexures - A". So, the Assessee itself has offered the said LTCG for taxation vide their above referred letter dated 27.11.2012. 6. In view of the above, it is not only a case of fraudulent claims, but also of falsity, of shifting stands and misrepresentation of facts before the Revenue

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

transferred 1/3 of the difference amount to profit and loss account under the head gain/ loss account during the F.Y 2008-09. The A.O, however held that the CBDT instructions No. 3 of 2010, 14 ITA.Nos.1689 & 1735 /Hyd/2012, M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. dated 23.03.2010 had dealt the issue of “marked to market” i.e where

R A K CEREMICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 R.A.K. Ceramics India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, P.O Box No.11, Circle 3(1), Adb Road, Samalkot, Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh. Pin – 53340, Pan : Aaccr6424N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Aliasagar Rampurwala, C.A. Revenue By: B. Balakrishna – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2014-15 Arises From The Assessment Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 28.11.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

Sections 144C(13) and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble Panel erred in upholding the action of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer