CONCENTRIX CATALYST TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our aforesaid observations

TDS credit amounting to INR 6,360 appearing in the Form 26AS as per the\nOGE dated 07 February 2024 pursuant to the order of Hon'ble CIT(A).\n19. erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act in the impugned order.\n20. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act against the Appellant without

VENKATESHWARA RAO DALAPATHIRAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 270A(3)(1)(a) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts, has rightly confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and thus, the Order passed by the learned CIT(A) should be upheld. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. There

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

3 of 20 ITA No 670 of 2023 Nippon Koei Co Ltd in nature and not penal, and therefore allowable as a business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. In support, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Trinity Infraventures Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No.403/Hyd/2021 for A.Y.2017–18 dated

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)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

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)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

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)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

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)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

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)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

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)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

270A of the Act and, therefore, the reasons explained\nby the assessee are factually not disputed because the\ndecision to file the appeal has been taken only after the\npenalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee\nhas explained the reasons for delay that only after the levy of\npenalty, the assessee has an imminent risk of facing

KARVY INSIGHTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 Karvey Insights Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karvy House, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafck7501C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate. (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Revenue By: Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.09.2024

3 requested additional time, which led to another notice on 25/11/2021. The assessee continued to seek extensions, eventually furnished partial details on 21/01/2022. Out of twelve queries, responses were provided for ten, but the details for queries 11 and 12 were not submitted, despite claims to the contrary. The assessee explained that Rs.5,87,38,675/- was debited under Direct

MAGNAQUEST TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 270A under which the penalty proceedings are initiated in the appellant case and hence the penalty order passed by AO u/s 270A is liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in not appreciating

MAGNAQUEST TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 270A under which the penalty proceedings are initiated in the appellant case and hence the penalty order passed by AO u/s 270A is liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in not appreciating

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

270A of the Act, the primary condition is to prove ‘mens rea’, i.e., guilty mind or an act of conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on part of Assessee, whereas the Appellant has disclosed all the information requested ITA No.785/Hyd/2024 6 for during the assessment proceedings as well as at the time of filing the Income tax return

ASWARTHANARAYANA VENKATA RENIGUNTLA,DHARMAVARAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Aswarthanarayana Venkata Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Anantapur. Reniguntla, Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Alrpr5400R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca Revenue By: Sri A. Sitarama Rao. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023

270A and 271F will be initiated separately. The contentions of the ld. AR are that : 1) No satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and therefore, penalty order cannot be passed u/s 271B of the Act. 2) Assessee had filed Audit Report during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer had satisfied and hence, there

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement

KALBURGI CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

270A of 3 the Act. Thereafter, final assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(4) read with section 144B of the Act dt.23.11.2011. 2.1. Being aggrieved by the order dt.23.11.2011, assessee company filed an application u/s 263 of the Act before the PCIT – 2, Hyderabad, seeking revision of the assessment order dt.23.11.2011 passed by the National Faceless Assessment

DAICEL CHIRAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Daicel Chiral Vs. 1. Deputy Technologies India Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle Medchal, 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. 2. National Faceless Pan : Aaccd8423B. Assessment Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Pradeep Revenue By: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

3 These are invoices which were raised and offered to tax in the A.Y. 2018-19 by the assessee. However, the customers had made accrual entries in A.Y. 2017-18 and accordingly withheld TDS based on such provisions. The assessee also submitted that said receipts has already been offered for tax. 4.4 The reply of the assessee has been perused