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

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

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

section 148 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961\nImproper many\nis covered w/1149(1)(b).\nIsame of motive of/5148\nis ayyun.\nDate: 6/10/23\n(SANJAY BAHADUR, IRS)\nDirector General of Income Tax (Inv).\nHyderabad.\n5.\nThus, it is clear that an identical sanction was granted\nby the DGIT (Inv), Hyderabad for all the A.Ys.\n6.\nAt the outset, we note

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

89,837/ which is related to profit attributable\nto works carried out by JVs and should not have\nrestricted the same only to the extent double deduction\nclaimed in the hands, JVs Rs.2,07,650/- as well as that\nof the assessee.\n5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

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

Section 148 is bad in law.\n8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -.\n9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nWe have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant

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

Section 148 is bad in law.\n8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A)\nis not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -.\n9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the\ntime of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nWe have considered the rival contentions as well as the\nrelevant

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

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

section 148 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961\n(YOGESH KUMAR VERMA, IRS)\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),\nHyderabad.\nDate: 6/10/23\n(SANJAY BAHADUR, IRS)\nDirector General of Income Tax (Inv).\nHyderabad.\n5. Thus, it is clear that an identical sanction was granted by the DGIT (Inv), Hyderabad for all the A.Ys.\n6. At the outset, we note that

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

89,996\n5,73,38,438\n\n2018-19\n9,79,67,978\n6,83,45,676\n\n2019-20\n3,78,69,796\n2,64,19,212\n\n2020-21\n5,95,94,164\n4,15,74,845\n\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n\n2022-23\n114

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

89,837/ which is related to profit attributable\nto works carried out by JVs and should not have\nrestricted the same only to the extent double deduction\n\nclaimed in the hands, JVs Rs.2,07,650/- as well as that\nof the assessee.\n\n5.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

89,837/ which is related to profit attributable\nto works carried out by JVs and should not have\nrestricted the same only to the extent double deduction\nclaimed in the hands, JVs Rs.2,07,650/- as well as that\nof the assessee.\n5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

89,837/ which is related to profit attributable\nto works carried out by JVs and should not have\nrestricted the same only to the extent double deduction\n27\nITA. Nos.1721, 1722 & 1723/Hyd./2017\nAnd ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019\nclaimed in the hands, JVs Rs.2,07,650/- as well as that\nof the assessee.\n5. Whether on the facts and circumstances

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

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

TDS : 1,08,30,957\nAdvance Tax: 5,00,00,000\nRefundable\nLess refund already issued vide 143(1) dt 28.03.2014\nTotal Demand\nAdd: Interest u/s 234D\nM/s.Vijayawada Tollway Private Limited\nOrder u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147/AY 2012-13\n6,08,30,957\n(1

CRUSTUM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2013-14 Crustum Products Private Vs. Dy. Cit, Limited, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccc 5920 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

TDS U/s. 37(1) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. 4. Ground No.(i): Disallowance of proportionate interest on interest free advances amounting to Rs. 15,61,749/- U/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 5. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD., HYDERABAD

89,996\n5,73,38,438\n2018-19\n9,79,67,978\n6,83,45,676\n2019-20\n3,78,69,796\n2,64,19,212\n2020-21\n5,95,94,164\n4,15,74,845\n2021-22\n3,00,82,983\n2,09,86,875\n2022-23\n114,26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n2023

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 :

TDS credit as per law. The above ground is allowed to that extent accordingly. The Ground nos. 6 & 7 are consequential to the grounds adjudicated above, therefore needs no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before

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

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

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

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

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

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

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

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account.\nIn support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case