ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

E-assessment Scheme, 2019,\nfor verifying multi-facet issues, viz. (i). disallowance under section 14A\nof the Act; (ii). allowability of the assessee's claim for deduction under\nsection 80G in respect of CSR donations; (iii). eligibility of the\nassessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act w.r.t its\npower generation units; and (iv). addition under

MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

E R PER BENCH : The appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross appeal filed by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt. 22.04.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the ld.CIT(A)”) invoking proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

E R PER BENCH : The appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross appeal filed by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt. 22.04.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the ld.CIT(A)”) invoking proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

BASANTH LAL SAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

2% of the value of such alleged bogus purchases. 9. The CIT(A), after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee, and also the application filed by him seeking admission of certain documentary evidence as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, observed that the copies of the invoices and e-way bills had already

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

22. The next issue that came up for our consideration is with respect to addition made by the A.O. towards cash sheets found in the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar for A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/-, for A.Y. 2015-16 amounting to Rs.7,26,100/- and for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.93

VISWANADH KANDULA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

e of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the assessee company is part of Exel group, was subjected to search & seizure action on 04.01.2023. The group consists of M/s Exel Rubber Private Limited, M/s Ace Tyres Private Limited and M/s vilas polymers private Limited. The assessments were done for all three companies

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

E-mail: -inkestates(b)-Rediff mail.com Date: 17.02.2010 To The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad. Respected Sir, Sub: No Objection to the Adjustment of Seized Cash -Assessment Year 2002-03 to 2008-09 Ref PAN No. AABCP 4222 D. * ** With reference to the above, we submit that during the course of search proceedings

M/S N.A.M. EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

e) under ICDS IV adjustment. However, as seen from the Profit & Loss account, only an amount of Rs.1,98,00,000/- was debited towards other comprehensive income for the year net of income tax. Instead of reducing Rs.1,98,00,000/-, the assessee company claimed and was allowed to reduce Rs.10,07,13,291/-, which resulted in excess allowance