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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

Section 148 is bad in law.\n8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A)\nis not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -.\n9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the\ntime of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nWe have considered the rival contentions as well as the\nrelevant

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

section 148 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961\n(YOGESH KUMAR VERMA, IRS)\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),\nHyderabad.\nDate: 6/10/23\n(SANJAY BAHADUR, IRS)\nDirector General of Income Tax (Inv).\nHyderabad.\n5. Thus, it is clear that an identical sanction was granted by the DGIT (Inv), Hyderabad for all the A.Ys.\n6. At the outset, we note that

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

Section 148 is bad in law.\n8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -.\n9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nWe have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

164\n4,15,74,845\n\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n\n2023-24\n1,61,80,065\n1,12,87,744\n\nTotal\n171,80,16,158\n125,50,48,707\n\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD., HYDERABAD

164\n4,15,74,845\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n2023-24\n1,61,80,065\n1,12,87,744\nTotal\n171,80,16,158\n125,50,48,707\n3. In view of the above, there is information which\nsuggests that income chargeable

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account.\nIn support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1330/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Krishna Constructions The Income Tax Officer, Nirmal. Telangana. Ward-1, Vs. Pin – 504 106. Nirmal – 504 106. Pan Aapfk1280K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri D Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar,Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

164 of 2023, dated 14-8-2023]. In the said case an identical contention as raised before us was raised stating that at best the action of the Assessing Officer could be construed to be an 29 ITA.No.1330/Hyd./2025 irregularity. While considering such a contention in Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP the Court rejected the same with the following observation :- "While

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

164\n4,15,74,845\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n2023-24\n1,61,80,065\n1,12,87,744\nTotal\n171,80,16,158\n125,50,48,707\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable

JOSHITA INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

1,95,00,000/- from Smt. Satyavani Sadanala, partner of the firm, out of which a sum of Rs. 95,00,000/- has been shown as sourced from the past savings. However, as evident from the details submitted by the assessee, the loan advanced out of past savings is not supported by relevant details, including bank account statements. Although

ITO., WARD 14(1), HYDERABAD vs. JOSHITA INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

1,95,00,000/- from Smt. Satyavani Sadanala, partner of the firm, out of which a sum of Rs. 95,00,000/- has been shown as sourced from the past savings. However, as evident from the details submitted by the assessee, the loan advanced out of past savings is not supported by relevant details, including bank account statements. Although

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with