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

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

164 4,15,74,845 2021-22 3,00,82,983 2,09,86,875 2022-23 114,26,53,017 85,36,56,501 2023-24 1,61,80,065 1,12,87,744 Total 171,80,16,158 125,50,48,707 3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

TDS has been made. Therefore, the decision of the CIT (A) on this point has to be set aside. In such circumstances, the alternate plea of the assessee assumes importance. 10. The learned Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

TDS has been made. Therefore, the decision of the CIT (A) on this point has to be set aside. In such circumstances, the alternate plea of the assessee assumes importance. 10. The learned Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

TDS. In view of this, the expenditure of Rs.84,610/- is not allowable one as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.84,610/- was disallowed and added back. 7. Disallowance of ROC Charges paid for increase in authorized share capital: 7.1 The AO observed that during the year under consideration

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

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