APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under section 194A of the Act, but had not filed its return of income, initiated penalty proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2021 was served upon the assessee company. However, the assessee company failed to file its return of income in compliance to the aforesaid notice. Also, the notices issued

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under section 194A of the Act, but had not filed its return of income, initiated penalty proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2021 was served upon the assessee company. However, the assessee company failed to file its return of income in compliance to the aforesaid notice. Also, the notices issued

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under section 194A of the Act, but had not filed its return of income, initiated penalty proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2021 was served upon the assessee company. However, the assessee company failed to file its return of income in compliance to the aforesaid notice. Also, the notices issued

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under section 194A of the Act, but had not filed its return of income, initiated penalty proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2021 was served upon the assessee company. However, the assessee company failed to file its return of income in compliance to the aforesaid notice. Also, the notices issued

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under section 194A of the Act, but had not filed its return of income, initiated penalty proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2021 was served upon the assessee company. However, the assessee company failed to file its return of income in compliance to the aforesaid notice. Also, the notices issued

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 144?”\n6. 5. In view of the discrepancies noticed and also in the absence of any evidence,\nthe books of accounts maintained by the assessee cannot be relied upon. Hence, the\nassessee was issued a showcause notice requiring to showcause as to why the\nsame should not be rejected u/sec.145(3) of the Act.\n7. In response

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERAABAD vs. DEENABABU KONDUBHATLA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

TDS relating to Section 195. 3 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had, during the subject year, sold two immovable properties, on which Long Term Capital Gain aggregating to Rs. 13,18,002/-, viz. (i). Property - I: Rs. 55,887/- and (ii). Property – II: Rs.12,62,115/- was disclosed in his return

SKANDHANSHI DEVELOPERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

144:\n\n6. 5. In view of the discrepancies noticed and also in the absence of any evidence, the books of accounts maintained by the assessee cannot be relied upon. Hence the assessee was issued a showcause notice requiring to showcause as to why the same should not be rejected [ section 145(3) of the Act].\n\n7. In response

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

TDS, which attracts disallowance\nu/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore,\nconsidering the overall scenario including relevant books of\naccounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search observed that,\nthe profit percentage of undisclosed turnover found during\nthe course of search proceedings should be more than the\nprofit percentage

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

TDS, which attracts disallowance\nu/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore,\nconsidering the overall scenario including relevant books of\n13\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\naccounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search observed that,\nthe profit percentage of undisclosed turnover found during\nthe course

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

TDS, which attracts disallowance\nu/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore,\nconsidering the overall scenario including relevant books of\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\n12\naccounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search observed that,\nthe profit percentage of undisclosed turnover found during\nthe

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

144.” \n6.5. In view of the discrepancies noticed and also in the absence of any evidence, \nthe books of accounts maintained by the assessee cannot be relied upon. Hence, the \nassessee was issued a showcause notice requiring to showcase as to why the \nsame should not be rejected under section 145(3) of the Act. \n7. In response

SIVA SANKARA REDDY TUNGA,HYDERABAD. vs. ITO., WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD.

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

Bench: Us:

TDS Statement): Rs.1,25,775/-; and (iv) time deposit exceeding Rs.2 lakhs or more with Andhra Bank: Rs.26,00,000/- , but had not filed his return of income for the subject year, i.e., AY 2016- 17, issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 25/03/2023

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

Bench: Us:

144 of the Act without issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory for initiating scrutiny proceedings. 4. The LD. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Ld. AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant under section 145 of the Act, and thereafter making separate additions on specific items, which

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

section 144:" 6. 5. In view of the discrepancies noticed and also in the absence of any evidence,\nthe books of accounts maintained by the assessee cannot be relied upon. Hence, the\nassessee was issued a showcause notice requiring to showcause as to why the\nsame should not be rejected u/ sec.145(3) of the Act.\n7. In response

CH MARTHANDA RAO AND CO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the order passed by the CIT(A) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations, and the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our afore...

Bench: Us:

Section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 23/03/2022 for the subject year i.e. 2014-15, taken cognizance of the submission of the successor company, viz. M/s Vensa Infrastructure Limited, that the partnership firm, i.e., M/s Ch. Marthanda Rao & Co. was converted into a limited company i.e. M/s CMR Projects Limited w.e.f 01/04/2012, and thereafter the company name

CH MARTHANDA RAO & CO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the order passed by the CIT(A) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations, and the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our afore...

Bench: Us:

Section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 23/03/2022 for the subject year i.e. 2014-15, taken cognizance of the submission of the successor company, viz. M/s Vensa Infrastructure Limited, that the partnership firm, i.e., M/s Ch. Marthanda Rao & Co. was converted into a limited company i.e. M/s CMR Projects Limited w.e.f 01/04/2012, and thereafter the company name

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

144 r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are as follows: 1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- invoking section