AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer had passed his all the penalty orders on 30.10.2015 after

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer had passed his all the penalty orders on 30.10.2015 after

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer had passed his all the penalty orders on 30.10.2015 after

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and they are given an opportunity to respond before any demand is raised. 25.2 However, an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. It is merely a preliminary check of the return filed

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:

TDS and VAT payable under section 43B of the Act: Rs. 6,08,694/-; and (v) addition of Rs.3,34,246

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

TDS as per the relevant provisions of the Act. 7. Any other ground or grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted the following written submissions: “1. In the present case, the AO passed assessment orders for asst. years 2003-04 to 2009-10 on various dates denying the benefit

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 6th February, 2026

246 ITR 568), it was held that in the absence of recording of\nsatisfaction in the assessment order, penalty proceedings under\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act are unsustainable in law. Accordingly,\nthe Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to quash the penalty order of\nthe Ld. AO.\n6.\nPer contra, the Learned Departmental Representative\n(“Ld. DR”) relied

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad

ASWIN ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

246 other expenses of Rs.7,48,497 and also remuneration paid to partners amounting to Rs. 16,00,000 total amounting to Rs.1,49,17,771 which are essential for earning commission income by the appellant firm. 3. The learned Assessing Officer grossly erred in understanding the laid down principles of accounting and making an addition of Rs.19

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

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj

SHANKARAIAH TELAKAPALLY,NALGONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, NALGONDA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shankaraiah Telakapalli, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4-10-520/Cs/1, Sainagar Ward – 1, Colony, Ward-24, Nalgonda. Nalgonda, Telangana - 508001. Pan : Alipt1315Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Phanindra, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/01/2024

TDS credit of Rs.42,656 while computing the income while the same is appearing in Form 26AS of the Appellant.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 246 days. He has moved a condonation application explaining reasons thereof. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad

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

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

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj\nITI

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

246 ITR 671] (Bom) hold that such an addition based merely on sectoral power consumption trends is also not sustainable. 6. Learned departmental representative lastly submitted that the assessee’s authorised person had duly admitted the impugned suppressed turnover in the search statement. We do not find any such admission from the assessee’s side since all its authorised persons

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

246 ITR 671] (Bom) hold that such an addition based merely on sectoral power consumption trends is also not sustainable. 6. Learned departmental representative lastly submitted that the assessee’s authorised person had duly admitted the impugned suppressed turnover in the search statement. We do not find any such admission from the assessee’s side since all its authorised persons

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

246 ITR 671] (Bom) hold that such an addition based merely on sectoral power consumption trends is also not sustainable. 6. Learned departmental representative lastly submitted that the assessee’s authorised person had duly admitted the impugned suppressed turnover in the search statement. We do not find any such admission from the assessee’s side since all its authorised persons

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

246 ITR 671] (Bom) hold that such an addition based merely on sectoral power consumption trends is also not sustainable. 6. Learned departmental representative lastly submitted that the assessee’s authorised person had duly admitted the impugned suppressed turnover in the search statement. We do not find any such admission from the assessee’s side since all its authorised persons

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

246 ITR 671] (Bom) hold that such an addition based merely on sectoral power consumption trends is also not sustainable. 6. Learned departmental representative lastly submitted that the assessee’s authorised person had duly admitted the impugned suppressed turnover in the search statement. We do not find any such admission from the assessee’s side since all its authorised persons

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

246 ITR 671] (Bom) hold that such an addition based merely on sectoral power consumption trends is also not sustainable. 6. Learned departmental representative lastly submitted that the assessee’s authorised person had duly admitted the impugned suppressed turnover in the search statement. We do not find any such admission from the assessee’s side since all its authorised persons