MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

TDS Rs. 26165215 Less : Advance Tax Rs. 12000000 Balance Tax Rs. 32835948 Add: Interest u/s 234A Rs. 1970157 Add: Interest u/s 234B Rs. 10835863 Add: Interest u/s 234C Rs. 0 Total tax + Int payable Rs. 45641967 Less: Self tax paid Rs. Less: Regular by Rs. 29414128 adjustment of refund Balance Payable. Rs. 16227839 Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 25. The assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring to the decision

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring to the decision

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

263 of the I.T Act, 1961 and the assessing officer is directed to examine the above discrepancies and assess the correct income by redoing the assessment afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessment order dated 29 03 2016 stands revised accordingly”.\n\n18.\nThus,, the order of the Assessing Officer was set aside/revised

UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED (UNIQUE RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS PVT LTD NOW MERGED WITH UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS PVT LTD ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-1 CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. United Rail Road Vs. Dy. C.I.T Consultants (P) Ltd., Central Circle 1(3) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacu8136E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A Appeared For Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.3.2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit (Central)- Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Providing Consultancy Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 29.9.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,29,74,860/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass In The Limited Scrutiny To Verify “Large Other Expenses Claimed In The Profit & Loss A/C & Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report &

u/s 263 of the I.T. Act and asked the assessee to explain as to why the said order should not be revised as per the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act. 3.1 The assessee filed detailed written submission the gist of which that the assessment was completed by making various Page

HRITIK EXIM,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Hritik Exim Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(1) C/O P.Murali & Co. 5Th Floor, It Towers Chartered Accountants Ac Guards 6-3-655/2/3 Hyderabad-500 004 Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082

revised VAT returns either before the AO or the ld.PCIT or before the Tribunal now to prove the veracity of the explanation. Since the discrepancy was not examined by the AO, therefore, while passing the assessment order, there was a failure on the part of the AO. Since, there was no application of mind by the AO, therefore, the ld.PCIT

AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

TDS and remains allowed in our Computation. The maximum disallowance which can arise is that\nwhich is already disallowed by the assessee-company in its computation of Total Income.\nn) Hence, we humbly request your goodself to drop the proposed revision initiated under Sec 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act 1961.\n8. The Pr. CIT, after deliberating on the contentions

SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

TDS deducted on sub-contract payments. The A.O. after considering relevant submissions, has accepted the return of income without making any additions.\n\n10. The provisions of section 263 of the Act deal with revisionary powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As per section 263 of the Act, the Ld.PCIT may conduct enquiry or call for relevant information

BBR PROJECTS LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Bbr Projects Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 1(14), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccb7153J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022

263 of the Act to the assessee on 15.02.2022. In response to the same, learned Authorised Representative of the assessee objected to the revision proceedings and mentioned that the issue of disallowance of interest was in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The objections of the assessee on the initiation of revision proceedings were rejected and the order was held

GANGA VINAY BABU,HYDERABAD vs. SIBENDU MOHARANA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-14 Ganga Vinay Babu, C/O. Ch. Vs. Ito, International Taxation, Parthasarathy & Co., 1-1- Nellore. 298/2/B/3, 1St Floor, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Ayxpg 9593 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Balakrishna, (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit (It& Tp), Hyderabad Dated 26Th February, 2020 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

TDS made of Rs.35,465/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w s 147 of the Act on 31.12.2018 assessing taxable income at Rs.10,61,720/-. 6. The CIT (IT & TP), Hyderabad, issued notice u/s 263 dated 11.12.2019, seeking to revise

NADIMINTY GANAPATHY SASTRY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nadiminty Ganapathy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Sastry, Circle 14(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalpg5424F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Smt.T.H. Vijayalakshmi,Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. There Is A Delay Of 50 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons For Delay Along With An Affidavit. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit & After Hearing The Learned Dr, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

263 of the I.T. Act. He also relied on the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd vs. DCIT vide ITA No.329/Kol/2017 order dated2.6.2017 for the ay 2012-13 and the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO reported

C ESWAR REDDY & CO., ,KURNOOL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 C. Eswar Reddy & Co., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Kurnool. Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Kurnool. Pan – Aacfc 7761J (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS against the gross receipts from contract receipts at Rs. 91,76,217/-. Thus there is no additional credit of Rs. 66,863/- allowed by the AO as pointed out by the Pr. e •... in the 263 order. Therefore the order passed by the AO is not erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest and hence not within

RK INFRA & ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 R.K. Infra & Engineering India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr9570Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.11.2022

u/s 263 of the Act, assessee is now in appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee had drawn our attention to the written submissions filed by the assessee which are to the following effect : “………… A. Legal Contention: 8. Want of Jurisdiction, when two views are possible then the view taken by the assessing officer

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A dt.31.03.2015 and accordingly he ought to have restricted the impugned disallowance to Rs.4,74,274/. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT{A) erred by not adjudicating on the Appellant's ground relating to the error committed by the Assessing Officer by not allowing credit

MADAN MOHAN RAO PUVVADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

revision u/s 263 is requested to be dropped.” 10.4. In para 2.2 and 2.3 of the reply of the assessee, it is contended that the property in question was purchased in the joint name of the assessee and his wife. The assessee 23 ITA.No.1152/Hyd./2024 further submitted that assessee’s PAN was quoted during the purchase however, the transaction

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. ITA No. 1281/Hyd/2017 by the revenue 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. This order was rectified u/s. 154 on 21.02.2013, whereby credit for additional TDS claimed was allowed. The Assessing Officer vide this order omitted to grant interest u/s

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. ITA No. 1281/Hyd/2017 by the revenue 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. This order was rectified u/s. 154 on 21.02.2013, whereby credit for additional TDS claimed was allowed. The Assessing Officer vide this order omitted to grant interest u/s

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, HYERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. ITA No. 1281/Hyd/2017 by the revenue 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. This order was rectified u/s. 154 on 21.02.2013, whereby credit for additional TDS claimed was allowed. The Assessing Officer vide this order omitted to grant interest u/s