SOUTHERN REALTORS & TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Realtors & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Towers Private Limited Tax, Circle 3 (2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs1895B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 263 and observed that there were certain discrepancies which are as follows: “3. On examination of the assessment record, discrepancies are noticed in the following issues: a) As seen from the agreement entered with the tenants, the municipal tax shall be payable by the tenants and as such the claim of municipal tax of Rs.3,57,524 needs

GLOBAL DEVELOPERS,NELLORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1683/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Global Developers, Vs. Dcit, Nellore. Circle-1, Pan: Aagfg8471R Nellore. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: None राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi. P, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

section 194I): Rs.1,55,880/-. In our view, as the assessee firm had failed to deposit tax deducted at source (TDS

TIRUMALA ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 27.04.2023 for A.Y. 2022-23. The assessee firm has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The learned

SRI AVANTIKA CONTRACTORS(I) LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara(Through Video Conference) Sri Avantika Contractors Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income (I) Limited, Tax, Circle 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aajcs 5046C Appellant Respondent

Section 271C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 2. Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities’ have erred in law and on facts in imposing 271C penalty of Rs.9,99,606; we note that the same pertains to its failure in not deducting/remitting TDS involving

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 294 of the Act. 11. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to delete the arbitrary additions made and upheld by the lower authorities. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 24.07.2017, declaring

ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SARANYA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

TDS being made. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Special Bench, Visakhapatnam, in the case of M/s. Merillyn Shipping &j Transport not considering the circular of CBDT in No. 10/DV/2013 (F.No.279/Misc./M-61/2012-ITJ, dt. 16.12.2013) 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Special