RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

131 of the Act, dated 01.12.2018, the assessee, in reply to question no.17 stated that, he has received an amount of Rs.45 lakhs by way of cash from one Sri Murali Goud for settlement of litigation in land admeasuring 45 acres owned by Sri Murali Goud at Kuntloor Village, Hayat Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bearing Survey Nos. 278/2, 278/3

PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3. Sec.11(6) introduced by Finance Act, 2014, AY 2015-16 reads as follows : Section 11(6) : " In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, for such purposes the income shall be determined without any deduction or allowance by way of depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

131 |\n| 9th | 2,645,284 | 150,000 | 1,264,385 | | 2,044,420 | 1,184,191 | | | 8,288,280 |\n| 10th | 5,488,465 | 1,200,000 | 3,781,615 | 483,632 | 1,277,000 | 2,620,010 | | | 14,850,722 |\n| 11th

FLYTECH AVIATION LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Flytech Aviation Limited, Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Secunderabad. Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Pan : Aaacf3053D. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca Revenue By: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram Date Of Hearing: 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.09.2022

131 ITR 597 (SC), 2. CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram – 294 ITR 49 (SC). 3. CIT Vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes – 262 ITR 354 (Kerala High Court) 4. Asma Estates and Investments Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT – ITA 782/Hyd/2020. 5. The Lok Prakashan Ltd. Vs. JCIT – ITA 1394/Ahd/2009. 6. DCIT Vs. Value Labs LLP – ITA 305/Hyd/2015. 12 7. ITO Vs. Happy Homes

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Section 132(4) recorded on 22.08.2008, he\nstated that, he has made total contribution of Rs.50 lakhs\nto M/s. Vinobha Nagar Development Society for the period\nfrom December 2005 to till the year 2008. He has neither\ngiven any further details on the expenditure, manner in\nwhich he has contributed the said amount of Rs.50 lakhs to\nthe Society

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

131 of the Act, dated\n01.12.2018, the assessee, in reply to question no.17 stated\nthat, he has received an amount of Rs.45 lakhs by way of\ncash from one Sri Murali Goud for settlement of litigation in\nland admeasuring 45 acres owned by Sri Murali Goud at\nKuntloor Village, Hayat Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy\nDistrict, bearing Survey Nos. 278/2, 278/3

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

131 of the Act, dated\n01.12.2018, the assessee, in reply to question no.17 stated\nthat, he has received an amount of Rs.45 lakhs by way of\ncash from one Sri Murali Goud for settlement of litigation in\nland admeasuring 45 acres owned by Sri Murali Goud at\nKuntloor Village, Hayat Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy\nDistrict, bearing Survey Nos.278/2, 278/3, 278/9

TOUCH TONE TELESERVICES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 987/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Touch Tone Teleservices, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 3-6-550/4, 1St Floor, Ward-4(1), Street No.7, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aacft5196N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/12/2019. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation is an allowable deduction even in cases of estimated income. 6. That the order of the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be quashed as it fails to deal with the specific contentions raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal and is not supported by appropriate reasoning. 7. Any other ground/grounds that

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

131 of the Act, where he has\nconfirmed amount paid to the\nassessee for land\ntransactions. The Assessing Officer has analysed the\ntransactions and came to the conclusion that, the assessee\nhas received money from various people for land\ntransactions, but, same has not been reported in the return\nof income for the relevant assessment years. Although, the\nassessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

131 was recorded from him. Copy of the statement is available at pages 51 & 52 of the paper book filed by the Department. In response to question no: 3, the said director admitted undisclosed income of Rs 15.29 Cr on the above issue. The statements of Shri Vijay Kumar and Shri K. Sudhakar were not questioned by the assessee

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

131 was recorded from him. Copy of the statement is available at pages 51 & 52 of the paper book filed by the Department. In response to question no: 3, the said director admitted undisclosed income of Rs 15.29 Cr on the above issue. The statements of Shri Vijay Kumar and Shri K. Sudhakar were not questioned by the assessee

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

3) of Sub-Section (4) of 80IA of the Act includes infrastructure facilities such as a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or sold waste management system. In the 19 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV present case, the assessee had constructed Gorakallu Balancing Reservoir as per the agreement made by the Superintending Engineer, SRBC Circle

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation on the\nrent out premises.\n11. The ld. AO has rejected the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.\n80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the reason that his predecessors have disallowed\nthe claim of the assessee for the earlier years and has extensively relied\non the same. It is observed that the assessee

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation on the\nrent out premises.\n\n11.\nThe ld. AO has rejected the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.\n80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the reason that his predecessors have disallowed\nthe claim of the assessee for the earlier years and has extensively relied\non the same. It is observed that the assessee

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation on the\nrent out premises.\n\n11. The ld. AO has rejected the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.\n80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the reason that his predecessors have disallowed\nthe claim of the assessee for the earlier years and has extensively relied\non the same. It is observed that the assessee

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

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an undertaking, any machinery or plant

PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

131 of the paper book. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee produced all relevant details along with finance audit report, income tax return and report in Form- 3CA and Form-3CD and Form-39B. The assessee also filed the details of bad debts along with the supporting evidence and the ledger accounts

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

3) r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act, interalia making addition of Rs.6,58,462/- towards excess depreciation and Rs.45,43,61,857/- towards commission payment. 4 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who allowed the appeal of assessee. The relevant observation of Ld.CIT(A) are mentioned in Para