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

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

254 is allowable under section 37(1) of the IT Act and not u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 13. The appellant contends that the disallowance of the proportionate premium of Rs.54,25,585 towards amounts utilized aggregating to Rs.9.50 crores for paying advance under agreement for purchasing land admeasuring 10579 Sq. Yds at Sanant Nagar, Hyderabad

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

254 is allowable under section 37(1) of the IT Act and not u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 13. The appellant contends that the disallowance of the proportionate premium of Rs.54,25,585 towards amounts utilized aggregating to Rs.9.50 crores for paying advance under agreement for purchasing land admeasuring 10579 Sq. Yds at Sanant Nagar, Hyderabad

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 :

1 (f) to section 115JB being squarely covered, the same cannot be found fault with. We are of the considered view that the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the revenue under section 254(2) of the Act was wholly misconstrued. The Tribunal has distinguished the case of Sobha Developers (supra) relied upon by the revenue with VireetInvestment (P.) Ltd. (supra

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

gain, provisions written back and interest income could have a direct nexus with the income of the undertaking and hence eligible for deduction u/s 10B, therefore, the reopening of the assessment merely on the basis of audit Page 26 of 35 ITA No 864 of 2017 Rain Cements Ltd Hyderabad objection for the sole basis of initiation of proceedings

VISHAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

gain arising from sale of shares as unexplained cash credit. Further kind attention is invited to Hon'ble Apex court decision in 273 ITR Page 1 in D.P.Sandhu Brothers has held that " .... But because we have held that Section 45 cannot be applied, it is not open to the Department to impose tax on such capital receipt by the assessee

SAHODHAR REDDY MUDDASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1619/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sahodhar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Muddasani Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aelpm9122N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Shri C Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.09.2025 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

1) of the Act arose in the year of execution of the JDA. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed long-term capital gain of Rs.3,65,904/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 153A of the Act vide order dated 26.04.2021, determining the total income

PUSA NANDA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

section 50C of the IT Act, and calculate income from capital gains. In response, the assessee has stated as under: "The land of Acres 5.27 guntas sold to M/s V.K. Projects Pvt. Ltd. was situated in the TL (Full Tank Level), Government treated water Body at Durgomcheruvu, Madhapur. 14 ITA.No.154/Hyd./2021 This was not noticed

OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

254 (SC), observed that, gain or loss on 6 ITA.No.1030/Hyd./2024 forex monitory items as on the balance date, should be accounted at the prevailing exchange rate and any difference in liability should be recognised as income or expenses in terms of AS-11 issued by the ICAI. The learned CIT(A) took support from the decision of ITAT

ALLAM ADAVAIAH ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

254 of the I.T.Act on 23-12¬2016 rejecting the claim of the appellant and taxing the capital gain in the A.Y.2004-05. The Assessing Officer taxed the capital gains on the ground that the sale of the property actually took place in the previous year 2003-04 relevant to asst. year 2004-05 and rejected the oral agreement claiming

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Gain\n(LTCG). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that\nas Village: Manchirevula falls within Rajendranagar Revenue\nMandal, therefore, it could not have been taken as a part and\nparcel of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The Ld. AR submitted\nthat \"Rajendranagar” is also one of the Municipal Corporation.\nElaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

capital gains of Rs.373 crores\non account of sale of shares of Kakinada Seaports Limited to\nM/s. Auro Infra Private Limited. Since, this was the income\noffered by the assessee and accepted by the Assessing Officer\nand therefore, there was no question of dispute on this point\nat the stage of assessment order as well as appellate order\npassed

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

254 days, for\nwhich they have filed one combined condonation petition in the form\nof Affidavit.\nLearned Department Representative (“Ld. DR\")\nsubmitted that, during the relevant period of delay of the C.O., there\nwas transfer of the Ld. AO, nomination of the Ld. AO for election\nduty and there were time barring assessment, penalty cases, reopening\nof assessment

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

capital gains. Thus, in our considered view the AO rightly allowed deduction u/s 54F of the 1961 Act to the assessee vide assessment order dated 20.10.2015 passed u/s 143(3) by the AO and to that extent the said assessment order cannot be termed as perverse or erroneous so far so it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue calling

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

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

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

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

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

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

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

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

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

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

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order