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

145 & 482/Hyd/2022, dated\n16/08/2023, wherein it has been held that there is no blanket prohibition\nunder the Income-tax Act against allowing deduction under section 80G\nin respect of CSR-related donations, except in cases specifically barred\nunder section 80G(2)(iiihk) and section 80G(2)(iiihl). For the sake of\nclarity, we deem it apposite to cull

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation on investments by considering earlier years opening stock and closing balances. ITA Nos.193 & 316/Hyd/2019 4 5.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the investments of the appellant bank are stock in trade and the appellant bank is eligible to claim the loss arising out of the valuation of the stock at cost

GMR HOSPITALITY AND RETAIL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO HYDERABAD DUTY FREE RETAIL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2016-17 Gmr Hospitality & Retail Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited (Successor Of Ward-2(2), Hyderabad Duty Free Retail Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcg 2928 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain, Ar Revenue By Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2021 Order

145 : Method of Accounting.—(1) Income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' or 'Income from other sources' shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. (2) The Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette from time

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

depreciation on\ninvestments by considering earlier years opening stock and closing balances.\n5.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact\nthat the investments of the appellant bank are stock in trade and the appellant bank\nis eligible to claim the loss arising out of the valuation of the stock at cost or market\nvalue whichever

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

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in section 32. Therefore, the Parliament has used the expression 'any expenditure in section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression 'expenditure' as used in section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss', even though said amount has not gone out from the pocket

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

145, has clearly held that, the right to collect toll revenue as per the concession agreement does not give rise to any intangible asset or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature as defined under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and thus the assessee cannot claim depreciation. The Ld. CIT-DR, further referring to the decision

NCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD vs. SHYAM BABA FERRO ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MAHBOOB NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Baba Ferro Alloys Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaocs 3654H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs Shyam Baba Ferro Alloys Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan – Aaocs 3654H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri M. Srinivas Date Of Hearing: 20/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: Both These Appeals Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against Cit(A) - 3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 12/10/2017 For Ay 2014-15

section 145 of the IT Act. Further, the assessing officer estimated the income from business at 2% on Rs.19,44,34,695/- representing revenue from operations. The assessing officer also treated the amount of Rs.4,23,51,491/- as income from speculation business rejecting the claim of the assessee that the same represent “income from other sources”. Thus, the assessing

SHYAM BABA FERRO ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Baba Ferro Alloys Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaocs 3654H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs Shyam Baba Ferro Alloys Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan – Aaocs 3654H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri M. Srinivas Date Of Hearing: 20/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: Both These Appeals Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against Cit(A) - 3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 12/10/2017 For Ay 2014-15

section 145 of the IT Act. Further, the assessing officer estimated the income from business at 2% on Rs.19,44,34,695/- representing revenue from operations. The assessing officer also treated the amount of Rs.4,23,51,491/- as income from speculation business rejecting the claim of the assessee that the same represent “income from other sources”. Thus, the assessing

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

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustified\nunless the contents are independently proved against the\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025

SRINATH REDDY NALLA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Srinath Reddy Nalla, Vs. Income Tax Officer, R/O.Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Pan : Aagpn8178E. Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) – 6, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. Ita 1233/Hyd/2019

section 145(3) of the Act. Page 3 of 12 ITA 1233/Hyd/2019 6. Per contra, the ld. DR had drawn our attention to the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and also the order passed by the Assessing Officer. It was the case of the Revenue that despite various opportunities, the assessee failed to produce the sale bills and vouchers

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

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

depreciation accordingly. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. The assessee challenged the order passed under section 250 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the ld.CIT(A) dt.27.05.2011 before the ITAT. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal under section 250 with reference to section

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

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

depreciation accordingly. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. The assessee challenged the order passed under section 250 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the ld.CIT(A) dt.27.05.2011 before the ITAT. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal under section 250 with reference to section

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

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

depreciation accordingly. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. The assessee challenged the order passed under section 250 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the ld.CIT(A) dt.27.05.2011 before the ITAT. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal under section 250 with reference to section

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:

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts and the submissions of the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in estimating the appellant

BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

145 is not correct and bad-in- law. 16. The Ld. GIT (A) erred in upholding that the Ld. AO estimating the income of the assessee at an Ad hoc percentage of 8% of turnover is 3 Bilwa Infrastructure Limited vs. ITO un-reasonable and not based on comparative results in the similar line of business

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation after completion and on commencement of its use for business. But since that stage is not reached-no asset having come into existence-the capital-work-in-progress had to be written off as such." 10 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 9. There was no challenge to such finding on facts before the learned

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation after completion and on commencement of its use for business. But since that stage is not reached-no asset having come into existence-the capital-work-in-progress had to be written off as such." 10 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 9. There was no challenge to such finding on facts before the learned

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation after completion and on commencement of its use for business. But since that stage is not reached-no asset having come into existence-the capital-work-in-progress had to be written off as such." 10 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 9. There was no challenge to such finding on facts before the learned