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

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

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

2'.\n4. Therefore, you are given an opportunity to explain as to why the order passed\nu/s.143(3) rws 144B of the Income Tax Act on 26.09.2022 in your case for the\n Assessment Year 2020-21 should not be revised u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, in\nwriting, with a certified copy of documents, accounts and other evidence

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

TDS ') amounting to Rs. 3,01,408 attributable to Infor (Bangalore) Private Limited and Rs. 3,49,350 attributable to Approva Systems Private Limited ('transferor companies') which were amalgamated with Appellant with effect from 01 April 2015. 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO erred in not granting credit

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS compliances. ITA No.895 896 and 4 1266/Hyd/2018 e) addition of 50% of sales promotion expenses of Rs.13,13,955/- amounting to Rs.6,56,978/- due to non- production of bills and vouchers. f) addition of Rs.1,27,840/- on account of depreciation due to non-submission of bills in support of additions of fixed assets during the year under

ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS compliances. ITA No.895 896 and 4 1266/Hyd/2018 e) addition of 50% of sales promotion expenses of Rs.13,13,955/- amounting to Rs.6,56,978/- due to non- production of bills and vouchers. f) addition of Rs.1,27,840/- on account of depreciation due to non-submission of bills in support of additions of fixed assets during the year under

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS compliances. ITA No.895 896 and 4 1266/Hyd/2018 e) addition of 50% of sales promotion expenses of Rs.13,13,955/- amounting to Rs.6,56,978/- due to non- production of bills and vouchers. f) addition of Rs.1,27,840/- on account of depreciation due to non-submission of bills in support of additions of fixed assets during the year under

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

2(47)(v) of the IT Act which was the ground for initiation of action u/s.153C of the IT Act), ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.153C of the IT Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the assessing officer by sustaining the disallowance to the extent of 50% in respect

AMSRI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDRABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

2(47)(v) of the IT Act which was the ground for initiation of action u/s.153C of the IT Act), ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.153C of the IT Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the assessing officer by sustaining the disallowance to the extent of 50% in respect

AMSRI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

2(47)(v) of the IT Act which was the ground for initiation of action u/s.153C of the IT Act), ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.153C of the IT Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the assessing officer by sustaining the disallowance to the extent of 50% in respect

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

2(47)(v) of the IT Act which was the ground for initiation of action u/s.153C of the IT Act), ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.153C of the IT Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the assessing officer by sustaining the disallowance to the extent of 50% in respect

AISWARYA ART CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE -13, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Aiswarya Art Vs. Income Tax Officer, Creations Pvt. Ltd., Ward 15(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aagca7479J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Kumar Aditya, (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.10.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.04.05.2018 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Satellite Rights. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 2 26.12.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.17,47,243. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly, Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Were Issued. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee For Which Summon U/S. 131 Of The Act Was Issued & The Statement Of The Assessee Was Recorded On 29.01.2014 Wherein He Agreed To Furnish The Required Information By 30.01.2014. Since There Was No Compliance Despite Number Of Opportunities, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Complete The Assessment U/S.144 Of The Act.

viii) Other expenses Rs.27,56,475. ix) Depreciation Rs.1,37,254. Total Expenditure : Rs.57,86,626/-. According to the Assessing Officer, the administrative cost in case of M/s. Mango Mass Media Pvt. Ltd. which is a comparable company engaged in similar line of business constitutes about 0.5% of the total turnover. Considering the turnover of the assessee at Rs.58

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445 has held as under: “The affidavit filed in support of the application for the condonation of delay disclosed that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a change of managing director. Though the chartered accountant of the company opined that it was a fit case for appeal and prepared

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445 has held as under: “The affidavit filed in support of the application for the condonation of delay disclosed that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a change of managing director. Though the chartered accountant of the company opined that it was a fit case for appeal and prepared