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

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

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 11/12/2018, had not looked into\nthe assessee's claim for depreciation/additional depreciation on solar\npower plant and thus, not formed any opinion on the said claim,\ntherefore, there can be no issue of any change of opinion by the\nsuccessor AO on the said issue on which no opinion was earlier formed.\nThe

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

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

145 & 482/Hyd/2022, dated 16/08/2023, wherein it has been held that there is no blanket prohibition under the Income-tax Act against allowing deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR-related donations, except in cases specifically barred under section 80G(2)(iiihk) and section 80G(2)(iiihl). For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull

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

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

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

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:

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’s income at 8% of the gross receipts, which is arbitrary, excessive, and without any cogent basis. 4. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred

KMC CONTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

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

145(3) are to be applied, the books of account are to be rejected and the income from contracts is to be estimated. 7.17. The next question is determination of the rate of profit. Elsewhere in the order a statement is appended showing that the profit rate of 12.5% (before depreciation) on the own contract works; 7.5% in respect

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

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

145(3) are to be applied, the books of account are to be rejected and the income from contracts is to be estimated. 7.17. The next question is determination of the rate of profit. Elsewhere in the order a statement is appended showing that the profit rate of 12.5% (before depreciation) on the own contract works; 7.5% in respect

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice

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