MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

b)(ii) of section 144C(15) are applicable from assessment year 2020-21 onwards, therefore, erred in rejecting the ground of objection in respect of applicability of section 144C of the IT Act, for the subject assessment year in the case of assessee. 3. The learned DRP ought to have held that the notice

ABBAS ALI AKHIL,USA vs. ACIT-INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

b)(ii) of section 144C(15) are applicable from assessment year 2020-21 onwards, therefore, erred in rejecting the ground of objection in respect of applicability of section 144C of the IT Act, for the subject assessment year in the case of assessee. 3. The learned DRP ought to have held that the notice

MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

b)(ii) of section 144C(15) are applicable from assessment year 2020-21 onwards, therefore, erred in rejecting the ground of objection in respect of applicability of section 144C of the IT Act, for the subject assessment year in the case of assessee. 3. The learned DRP ought to have held that the notice

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

capital adjustment itself takes the impact of outstanding receivable on profitability. Accordingly no separate adjustment is warranted on outstanding receivables. 7. The Ld. AO/DRP ought to have appreciated the fact that no separate adjustment on receivables is to be made, when the principle transaction is considered to be at arm's length. 8. Without prejudice, the TPO/DRP ought to have

SRUTHI RIEDL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

sections 50C, 50CA.and 50D.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee being an NRI has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2016 - 17 declaring an income of Rs.18,26,340/- towards income from house property and towards income from short term and long term capital gains and the case was processed. Thereafter, information was received

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि /\nDate of Conclusion of Hearing\n: 08.07.2025\nघोषणा की तारीख /\nDate of Pronouncement\n: 03.09.2025\nORDER\nप्रति रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.\nThe present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the\norder passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 10,\nHyderabad, dated 19.12.2024, which

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C(13) of the Act on 30.06.2023 by making addition of Rs.80,00,13,814/- on account of income from capital gain and addition of Rs.83,62,670/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. 4.2 Aggrieved with the final assessment order of Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before

ASRA AHMED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

capital gains and additions towards cash consideration u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 26/12/2023, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, on 19/01/2024 and determined

SYED AHMED ZEESHANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

capital gains and additions towards cash consideration u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 26/12/2023, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, on 19/01/2024 and determined

RAJU SURYANARAYANA ALLURI,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 02/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 19/05/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Shri Raju Suryanarayana Alluri (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

144C(3) and 144B was passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) on 28.06.2021, making an addition of Rs.2,26,82,071/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 4. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act and issued notice to the assessee on 08.03.2024. The Ld. PCIT recorded that the Ld. AO during scrutiny

HARIPRIYA TEKUPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TXN - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain. Therefore, once the Assessing Officer considered the return of income furnished by the assessee dated 07.09.2022 in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, in our considered view, then, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment. 20 ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd./2024 In the present

GANGARAM REDDY TEKULAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., INT TAXN- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain. Therefore, once the Assessing Officer considered the return of income furnished by the assessee dated 07.09.2022 in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, in our considered view, then, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment. 20 ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd./2024 In the present

SOMNATH KONDURU,UNITED STATES vs. I.T.O (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gains. The DRP disposed of the said objection filed by the assessee vide it’s Direction issued under section 144C(5) of the Act dated 30.10.2023 and rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the objections filed by the assessee on 06.04.2023 is beyond the “due date” prescribed under the Act i.e., 05.04.2023 and not maintainable

MADHU KUMAR PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT, ( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 133/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Madhu Kumar Patel, ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, Hyderabad Vs. Hyderabad [PAN No. BVDPP3797G] अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा /Revenue by: Shri K. Madhusudan

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 03/02/2022 and assessed the total income at Rs. 104,99,80,729/-. While passing the assessment order, the Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 270A of the Act for under- reporting of income. Feeling aggrieved by the directions of the Ld. DRP / Assessment Order, the assessee preferred the present appeal

TEK SYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

144C(5) of the Act, is illegal, thus, making the final assessment order bad in law, null and void and thus, liable to be quashed.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee TES Systems Global Services (P) Ltd (formerly Frontline Consulting Services P Ltd) was incorporated on Nov. 23, 2007 as per the provisions of software

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the captioned six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the captioned six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri