EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

TDS in their assessments on the basis entries in Form No.26AS. The most relevant provision is Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that the Court may presume that Judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. No evidence was found to show that cash was returned by these entities to Appellant. Mere oral statements

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

TDS in their assessments on the basis entries in Form No.26AS. The most relevant provision is Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that the Court may presume that Judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. No evidence was found to show that cash was returned by these entities to Appellant. Mere oral statements

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

section 132 of the income tax Act 1961 / 37Aof the W. T.Act 1957 in the case of (A) above to search the place mentioned at (B) above and duly signed and sealed by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Hyderabad to Sri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka who was present in the said place at the time and who after reading

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

section 132 of the income tax Act 1961 / 37Aof the W. T.Act 1957 in the case of (A) above to search the place mentioned at (B) above and duly signed and sealed by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Hyderabad to Sri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka who was present in the said place at the time and who after reading

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

132/-, made during the post demonetization period); (ii) addition of unproved sundry creditors under section 68 of the Act: Rs. 43,43,207/-; (iii) addition of unsecured loan made under section 68 of the Act: Rs.16,19,208/-; (iv) disallowance towards TDS

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustifed\nunless the contents are independently proved against the THE PARTY\n42\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd

V S A INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 27.09.2018 in the case of the assessee, and simultaneously survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also conducted in the case of the assessee. 4. During the course of search, no incriminating material pertains to the assessee was found and seized, except a bank account

V S A INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 27.09.2018 in the case of the assessee, and simultaneously survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also conducted in the case of the assessee. 4. During the course of search, no incriminating material pertains to the assessee was found and seized, except a bank account

V S A INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 27.09.2018 in the case of the assessee, and simultaneously survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also conducted in the case of the assessee. 4. During the course of search, no incriminating material pertains to the assessee was found and seized, except a bank account

V S A INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 27.09.2018 in the case of the assessee, and simultaneously survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also conducted in the case of the assessee. 4. During the course of search, no incriminating material pertains to the assessee was found and seized, except a bank account

V S A INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 27.09.2018 in the case of the assessee, and simultaneously survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also conducted in the case of the assessee. 4. During the course of search, no incriminating material pertains to the assessee was found and seized, except a bank account

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS on audit fee under Section 194J of the Act, and also failed to file relevant ITR filed by the auditor, in our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. towards disallowance of audit fee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be upheld. Therefore, we uphold the addition of Rs. 30,000/- made towards disallowance

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS on audit fee under Section 194J of the Act, and also failed to file relevant ITR filed by the auditor, in our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. towards disallowance of audit fee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be upheld. Therefore, we uphold the addition of Rs. 30,000/- made towards disallowance

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS on audit fee under Section 194J of the Act, and also failed to file relevant ITR filed by the auditor, in our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. towards disallowance of audit fee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be upheld. Therefore, we uphold the addition of Rs. 30,000/- made towards disallowance

BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS returns, also remitted GST and filed necessary returns of the significant value. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145 is not correct and bad-in- law. 16. The Ld. GIT (A) erred in upholding that the Ld. AO estimating the income

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 132(4) of the Act and thus, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs.50 lakhs towards donation from undisclosed income. 58. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition. 59. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition towards donation from

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of— (i) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of— (i) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income