MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. action u/s 154. The Assessing Officer has therefore, rightly rejected the petition u/s 154 seeking deduction u/s 80IA.” 27. The assessee vide his application dt.04.07.2013 filed two M.A. Nos.171 and 172 /Hyd/2013 in ITA Nos.805 and 806/Hyd/2010 for A.Y.s 2005-06 and 2006-07 before the Tribunal. The submissions made by the assessee

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. action u/s 154. The Assessing Officer has therefore, rightly rejected the petition u/s 154 seeking deduction u/s 80IA.” 27. The assessee vide his application dt.04.07.2013 filed two M.A. Nos.171 and 172 /Hyd/2013 in ITA Nos.805 and 806/Hyd/2010 for A.Y.s 2005-06 and 2006-07 before the Tribunal. The submissions made by the assessee

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. action u/s 154. The Assessing Officer has therefore, rightly rejected the petition u/s 154 seeking deduction u/s 80IA.” 27. The assessee vide his application dt.04.07.2013 filed two M.A. Nos.171 and 172 /Hyd/2013 in ITA Nos.805 and 806/Hyd/2010 for A.Y.s 2005-06 and 2006-07 before the Tribunal. The submissions made by the assessee

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS),WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

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

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

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

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

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

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

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

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

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

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

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

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

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

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

NEERAJ KUMAR AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.03.2010 was not in conformity with the direction of the Tribunal dt.31.03.2011. The assessee had preferred to file various objections for seeking the enforcement of the order passed by the Tribunal and the letter was also written on 11.10.2013 to give effect to the order. However, on the application of the assessee

H GANGARAM CLOTH MERCHANTS ,NIZAMABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRINIVASA CHAKRAVARTHI RAJU GOKARAJU, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 143(3) was completed on 28-03-20 13. Therefore, as submitted by the appellant, the revised return was filed well in time. Therefore" the revised return has to be considered by the Assessing Officer. Page 4 of 12 8.3 In the revised return, the appellant has not disclosed the amount of Rs. 27.35 crores as disclosed

SEW BELLARY HIGHWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sew Bellary Highways Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 3(1) Pan:Aaocs6549K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: N O N E Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.20.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. An Adjournment Application Has Been Filed By The Assessee Seeking Adjournment Of The Case. However, A Perusal Of The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Shows That The Assessee Had Withdrawn The Appeal Before The Cit (A) Nfac For Which The Appeal Was Dismissed As Withdrawn. Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Learned Dr.

depreciation allowance of Rs.11,33,82,477/- which was duly allowed in the previous A.Y. It was further submitted that the addition towards the delay in deposit of PF of Rs.64,800/- was made twice i.e., in the orders u/s 143(1) and 143(3). 5. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed rectification order u/s 154

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

rectification order u/s 154 on 27.11.2023 giving relief to the assessee and reducing the total income to Rs. 191.62 crores. (ii) The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the adjustment of Rs.7,68,64,484 made by the CPC observing that the same is GST refund without bringing on record the working out of the same and examining the correctness

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and\nthe revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of\nour observations recorded hereinabove

u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 25,85,800/-. Accordingly,\nthe AO, vide his order passed under Section 144 of the Act, dated\n26/11/2019, converted the returned loss into a positive income\nof Rs. 3,37,78,220/-\n4. Subsequently, the AO passed a rectification order under\nSection 154 of the Act, dated 10/11/2021, wherein he rectified\nthe rate

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 25,85,800/-. Accordingly, the AO, vide his order passed under Section 144 of the Act, dated 26/11/2019, converted the returned loss into a positive income of Rs. 3,37,78,220/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO passed a rectification order under Section 154 of the Act, dated 10/11/2021, wherein he rectified the rate

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years