SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS,,KHAMMAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 41(1)\nor 68 of the Act.:-\n\n(i) That the purchase of the hides from the sundry creditors is\nevident from the purchase bills and books of accounts\nmaintained by the appellant. As regards the treatment of the\nsame as bogus

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

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

41 ITA.Nos.1870 to 1875/Hyd./2025 21. The description of these transactions as receipts as well as payments are also mentioned in the seized documents. However, neither the search party nor the Assessing Officer has made any effort to ascertain and bifurcate the transactions related to each of the entity and further the nature of these receipts and payments

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

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

41 ITA.Nos.1870 to 1875/Hyd./2025 21. The description of these transactions as receipts as well as payments are also mentioned in the seized documents. However, neither the search party nor the Assessing Officer has made any effort to ascertain and bifurcate the transactions related to each of the entity and further the nature of these receipts and payments

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

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

41 ITA.Nos.1870 to 1875/Hyd./2025 21. The description of these transactions as receipts as well as payments are also mentioned in the seized documents. However, neither the search party nor the Assessing Officer has made any effort to ascertain and bifurcate the transactions related to each of the entity and further the nature of these receipts and payments

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

41 of 74 ITA No 1894 of 2025 Exel Rubber Private Ltd (a) a search under section 132 which is initiated; or (b) a search under section 132 for which the last of authorisations is executed; or (c) requisition made under section 132A, after the 15th day of March of such financial year, a period of fifteen days shall

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

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

41 as under:\n\"13. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the\nrelevant material available on record. The assessee has\nchallenged the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on\nvarious grounds including the ground of limitation, invalid\nsanction by superior authority and non-satisfaction of the\nconditions as laid down u/s 149(1

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

41 as under:\n\n\"13. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the\nrelevant material available on record. The assessee has\nchallenged the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on\nvarious grounds including the ground of limitation, invalid\nsanction by superior authority and non-satisfaction of the\nconditions as laid down u/s 149(1

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

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

41 as under:\n\"13. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee has challenged the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on various grounds including the ground of limitation, invalid sanction by superior authority and non-satisfaction of the conditions as laid down u/s 149(1

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

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

41 as under:\n\n\"13. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the\nrelevant material available on record. The assessee has\nchallenged the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on\nvarious grounds including the ground of limitation, invalid\nsanction by superior authority and non-satisfaction of the\nconditions as laid down u/s 149(1

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

41 of 78\n\nA.Y 2014-15 to 2018-19 were issued after 3 years from the end of\nthe relevant A.Y. Therefore, until and unless the conditions as\nstipulated in clause (b) of section 149(1) of the Act are satisfied,\nthe notice issued u/s 148 of the Act would be invalid being\nbartred by limitation provided

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

bogus, it should be added to income from cement unit or power unit accordingly, instead of attributing them to 801A deduction. Hence it is held that 1% disallowance of total expenses of the company from deduction u/s 80IA is unwarranted. As a result, ground no 4 is allowed. 6. Ground No.5 is raised against disallowance U/s 80IA to the tune

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

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

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

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

41,870/-. It was the contention of the ld.AR that the return filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 153C is required to be considered as a return filed u/s 139 of the I.T. Act and therefore, there cannot be any submission of inaccurate particulars of income. Ld.AR has drawn our attention to section 153C

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

bogus\ninvoices to route funds.\n27.\nIt is an undisputed fact that the assessee company had recorded\nthe sales made to the aforementioned party, viz. M/s Lakshin Infradev\nPvt. Ltd in its books of account, included the same in its turnover, and\nreceived the sale consideration through banking channels. Also, it\ntranspires that the assessee company, to substantiate the subject

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. 31. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the impugned addition has been made on the basis of material found from the email account of Shri P. Anil Kumar, which contained