BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance of Rs. 2,91,31,153/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. IL & FS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LIMITED , HYDERABAD

sections": [ "40A(3)", "40(a)(ia)", "194A", "194C", "69C", "36(1)(iii)", "194I" ], "issues": "The main issues involved the validity of disallowances made by the AO and sustained or partly deleted by the CIT(A) concerning cash payments, TDS

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

69C ITA Nos.737 & 881/Hyd/2025 4 of the Act: Rs. 34,58,38,297/-; (ii) disallowance of depreciation: Rs. 3,11,24,473/-; (iii) disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: Rs. 32,89,736/-; (iv) disallowance of interest on delayed remittance of TDS

IL & FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED(FORMERLY MAYTAS INFRA LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, HYDERABAD

TDS non-deduction, disallowance of interest on term loans and subcontractors, and disallowance of vehicle hire charges and other payments were decided. The Tribunal deleted certain additions while confirming others.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "40A(3)", "40(a)(ia)", "194C", "69C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. SURESH CONSTRUCTIONS, GUNTAKAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 69C of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Therefore the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the records in the light of the submissions made by either side. The Ld. CIT(A) has categorically given

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and\nthe revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of\nour observations recorded hereinabove

69C\nof the Act: Rs. 34,58,38,297/-; (ii) disallowance of depreciation:\nRs. 3,11,24,473/-; (iii) disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the\nAct: Rs. 32,89,736/-; (iv) disallowance of interest on delayed\nremittance of TDS

INTEGRATED GAS CONTROLS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

TDS as per law. Therefore, in our considered view, once the assessee explained the nature of expenditure and also records such expenditure, then the provisions of section 69C

ACIT, CC-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. LEPL PROJECTS LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 115BBE which is consequential in nature, is not valid. Accordingly, ground no.12 of the appeal is in consequential for adjudication. However, any addition made u/ s. 68 or 69C will be liable for charge u/s. 115BBE. In ground no.6, the appellant contended that the AO did not consider the explanation of the appellant submitted vide letter

KCVR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.986/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Kcvr Infra Projects Private Vs. Asstt. Cit Limited Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeck2457N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C A M.V. Prasad राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Kcvr Infra Projects Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.03.2025 For The A.Y 2021-22. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed Before Us With A Delay Of Three Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With A Copy Of Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. Ar”)

69C of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2022, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.10,19,92,786/-. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), agreeing with the findings

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

GARUDAPALLY SHRUTHI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

PARIGE VENKAT RAM REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

SANJAY GARUDAPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

BALLELA SAI SREE,NELLORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

GUDURI VENKATA RAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered