DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 254(1) of the 1961 Act,), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment.” 30.1 In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the ld.CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S DECCAN GRAMEENA BANK), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s C

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

viii) of sub- section (1) of section 36 the aforesaid amount shall be computed with reference to the income credited or paid by a branch of the banking company or the co-operative society or the public company, as the case may be : Provided further that the amount referred to in the first proviso shall be computed with reference

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. TELANGANA GRAMEENA BANK(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S DECCAN GRAMEENA BANK), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s C

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

viii) of sub- section (1) of section 36 the aforesaid amount shall be computed with reference to the income credited or paid by a branch of the banking company or the co-operative society or the public company, as the case may be : Provided further that the amount referred to in the first proviso shall be computed with reference

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

viii. erred in concluding that the Appellant failed to comply with the subsection (1) and (2) of 92C of the Act. Corporate tax matters 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing the expenditure incurred for repairs and maintenance treating the same as capital in nature without considering

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

viii. erred in concluding that the Appellant failed to comply with the subsection (1) and (2) of 92C of the Act. Corporate tax matters 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing the expenditure incurred for repairs and maintenance treating the same as capital in nature without considering

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

1. erred in determining the income of the Appellant at INR 31,99,82,158 as against returned income of INR 28,40,73,030 for the year under consideration. VALIDITY OF FINAL ORDER PASSED BEYOND TIMELINES PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 153 OF THE ACT 2. erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

viii) or falling under any of the clauses. Therefore, the ground no. 4 is dismissed accordingly.” 4 ITA.No.1187/Hyd/2018 4. With respect to the addition of Rs.5,59,249,590/- and addition of Rs.5,14,80,879/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) had held at pages 58 to 65 as under : The facts

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

viii) Sundaram Business Services Pvt Limited ix) Tata Consulting Engineers Limited x) Tata Elxsi Limited xi) Cosmic Global Limited xii) BNR Udyog Limited 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds on incorrect selection of functionally dissimilar comparable companies while benchmarking the ITES Services (ITeS) segment of the Appellant, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

viii)( c ) of general instructions for preparation of the Statement of Profit and Loss as per Schedule III to the Companies Act, 2013.” 9.2 Thus, on perusal of above we find that there is no dispute on the fact that the assessee is engaged in rendering multiple services, including both digital marketing services and SDS. ITA No.1747/Hyd/2019

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

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:

viii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the explanation submitted by the assessee based on the evidences to this effect that were filed before him and in spite of the fact that the entire amount from the partners was received through banking channels

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

36,867 Sonal Fitkariwala AAGPF2455E 78,539 42,603 Bela Agarwal ABFPB5720L 89,543 81,877 Kajal Agarwal AIIPA3538M 37,307 34,153 Rajesh Kumar Agarwal ACZPA6945M 65,145 58,728 Ketan Agarwal AFUPA5182N 28,004 22,485 Dimpel Agarwal AIZPA4974A 24,510 23,779 Indu Jhunjhunwala ACUPJ4786C 23,000 15,685 Ajay Jhunjhunwala AAGHA0988F 17,506 17,506 Keshav

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

36,867 Sonal Fitkariwala AAGPF2455E 78,539 42,603 Bela Agarwal ABFPB5720L 89,543 81,877 Kajal Agarwal AIIPA3538M 37,307 34,153 Rajesh Kumar Agarwal ACZPA6945M 65,145 58,728 Ketan Agarwal AFUPA5182N 28,004 22,485 Dimpel Agarwal AIZPA4974A 24,510 23,779 Indu Jhunjhunwala ACUPJ4786C 23,000 15,685 Ajay Jhunjhunwala AAGHA0988F 17,506 17,506 Keshav

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

36,867 Sonal Fitkariwala AAGPF2455E 78,539 42,603 Bela Agarwal ABFPB5720L 89,543 81,877 Kajal Agarwal AIIPA3538M 37,307 34,153 Rajesh Kumar Agarwal ACZPA6945M 65,145 58,728 Ketan Agarwal AFUPA5182N 28,004 22,485 Dimpel Agarwal AIZPA4974A 24,510 23,779 Indu Jhunjhunwala ACUPJ4786C 23,000 15,685 Ajay Jhunjhunwala AAGHA0988F 17,506 17,506 Keshav

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

36,867 Sonal Fitkariwala AAGPF2455E 78,539 42,603 Bela Agarwal ABFPB5720L 89,543 81,877 Kajal Agarwal AIIPA3538M 37,307 34,153 Rajesh Kumar Agarwal ACZPA6945M 65,145 58,728 Ketan Agarwal AFUPA5182N 28,004 22,485 Dimpel Agarwal AIZPA4974A 24,510 23,779 Indu Jhunjhunwala ACUPJ4786C 23,000 15,685 Ajay Jhunjhunwala AAGHA0988F 17,506 17,506 Keshav

AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

36,78,178/- on the contract payments of only Rs.82,64,73,583/-.\nThe reasons for the non deduction of the TDS u/s.194C of the IT Act on the contract\npayments to the tune of Rs.252,58,28,531/- were not verified by the Faceless Assessing\nOfficer (FAO) during the assessment proceedings. This discrepancy indicates that the\nFAO completed

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

viii. The Assessing Officer in his order at para 6 makes an observation that the assessee had not taken the offer of cross examination. Since none of the agents have denied the receipt of commission and all of them have in fact confirmed the receipt of such commission, the assessee did not find it necessary to cross examine

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS, which attracts disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, considering the overall scenario including relevant books of ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. 13 accounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating material found during the course of search observed that, the profit percentage of undisclosed turnover found during the course

DCIT-1, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALIREDDY, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

viii. Andhra Networks Vs. DCIT – 167 TTJ 496 (ITAT Hyderabad Bench). ix. CIT Vs. Shahajada Begam – 173 ITR 397 (Andhra Pradesh High Court). x. CIT Vs. Smt. G. Venkata Laxmi – 373 ITR 572 (A.P and Telangana High Court.) xi. CIT Vs. A Suresh Rao – 417/2013 of Karnataka High Court. xii. CIT. Vs. Shakuntala Devi – 389 ITR 366 (Karnataka High Court