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

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

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

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

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

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

M/S COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Holidays Ltd (Formerly Tax, Circle 3 (2) Known As Country Club Hyderabad India Ltd) Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc8276B (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

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

3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) or accounting standards as notified under sub-section (2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in 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

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

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

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

145 to 146 of APB, which reads as under: "ANNEXURE From the details available on record, it is observed that the assessee has claimed 100% depreciation of Rs. 7,34,14,979/- on solar power plant (80% on power plant -20% additional depreciation) in A.Y. 2015-16. However, the assessee has not received and offered any income from sale

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

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

145 58,728 Ketan Agarwal AFUPA5182N 28,004 22,485 Dimpel Agarwal AIZPA4974A 24,510 23,779 Indu Jhunjhunwala ACUPJ4786C 23,000 15,685 Ajay Jhunjhunwala AAGHA0988F 17,506 17,506 Keshav Agarwal ARHPA2978D 23,345 19,204 Subhash Chand AAJPG6304J 20,002 6,486 Gaoddia Umesh Kumar Agarwal AAAHU5753L 21,340 17,686 Parikh Neema Bhavesh AGKPP0932G

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

145 58,728 Ketan Agarwal AFUPA5182N 28,004 22,485 Dimpel Agarwal AIZPA4974A 24,510 23,779 Indu Jhunjhunwala ACUPJ4786C 23,000 15,685 Ajay Jhunjhunwala AAGHA0988F 17,506 17,506 Keshav Agarwal ARHPA2978D 23,345 19,204 Subhash Chand AAJPG6304J 20,002 6,486 Gaoddia Umesh Kumar Agarwal AAAHU5753L 21,340 17,686 Parikh Neema Bhavesh AGKPP0932G

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

145 58,728 Ketan Agarwal AFUPA5182N 28,004 22,485 Dimpel Agarwal AIZPA4974A 24,510 23,779 Indu Jhunjhunwala ACUPJ4786C 23,000 15,685 Ajay Jhunjhunwala AAGHA0988F 17,506 17,506 Keshav Agarwal ARHPA2978D 23,345 19,204 Subhash Chand AAJPG6304J 20,002 6,486 Gaoddia Umesh Kumar Agarwal AAAHU5753L 21,340 17,686 Parikh Neema Bhavesh AGKPP0932G

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

145 58,728 Ketan Agarwal AFUPA5182N 28,004 22,485 Dimpel Agarwal AIZPA4974A 24,510 23,779 Indu Jhunjhunwala ACUPJ4786C 23,000 15,685 Ajay Jhunjhunwala AAGHA0988F 17,506 17,506 Keshav Agarwal ARHPA2978D 23,345 19,204 Subhash Chand AAJPG6304J 20,002 6,486 Gaoddia Umesh Kumar Agarwal AAAHU5753L 21,340 17,686 Parikh Neema Bhavesh AGKPP0932G

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