DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD vs. SOUTH ASIAN CERAMIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

depreciation. 3. Thereafter, the AO issued notices under section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that the assessee company had in its balance sheet disclosed “unsecured loans” to the tune of Rs.17,38,91,674/-. As the assessee company out of the total loans

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

133(6) of the Act from any person on presumption that the said person is a shareholder. Further according to the learned Assessing Officer there is a discrepancy in the letters dated 10/10/2017 and 19/12/2017 in respect of the number of shares proposed to be issued on various dates to various shareholders. Learned Assessing Officer has given the details

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

133(6) of the Act from any person on presumption that the said person is a shareholder. Further according to the learned Assessing Officer there is a discrepancy in the letters dated 10/10/2017 and 19/12/2017 in respect of the number of shares proposed to be issued on various dates to various shareholders. Learned Assessing Officer has given the details

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE vs. VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

Bench: Us:

133(6) and identified total cash deposits of 3,32,14,750/-, alongside other high-value transactions. In the absence of any compliance from the assessee, the proceedings continued under Section 144 (best judgment assessment), culminating in proposed additions based on unsubstantiated transactions. The non-compliance and failure to file returns, despite substantial financial activity, indicated probable income suppression

SSNC FINTECH SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

Section 133 of the Companies Act, 1961.”\n(b) The company also manufactures products such as\nelectronic boards and printer circuits by importing raw\nmaterials and holding inventory, as apparent from Page No.\n119 of the PB-II. The assessee company is not engaged into\nany activity of producing physical goods.\nPage No. 119 of the PB-II\nUnless otherwise

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciation of non-compete fee. However, sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of excess deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act and disallowance u/se.14A of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the appellant company and the Revenue are now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The first issue

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ANANTHA PVC PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.317/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1, Kurnool. Anantapur. Pan:Aagca0936J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.A. & Shri P. Rosi Reddy, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25.07.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 147 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The

depreciation was allowed, but the carry ITA No.317/Hyd/2025 6 forward of business loss was denied. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act for verification of cash deposits during demonetisation. The assessee submitted various records including audited balance sheet, cash book, sales invoices, excise documents, and bank statements. However, the Learned Assessing Officer

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is\npartly allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation of non-compete\nfee. However, sustained the addition made by the Assessing\nOfficer towards disallowance of excess deduction claimed\nunder section 35(2AB) of the Act and disallowance u/se.14A\nof the Act.\n8.\nAggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the\nappellant company and the Revenue are now in appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n9.\nThe first issue

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

depreciation from an eligible unit were set off against other income in previous years, they should not be reopened or notionally carried forward again to reduce the Section 801A deduction in the chosen initial assessment year. We find that the “SLP” filed by the revenue against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court had been dismissed

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

depreciation from an eligible unit were\nset off against other income in previous years, they should not be\nreopened or notionally carried forward again to reduce the Section 801A\ndeduction in the chosen initial assessment year. We find that the “SLP”\nfiled by the revenue against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High\nCourt had been dismissed