RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation in respect of works executed both direct and sub- contract is at 17.26% and net profit is about 7.12% and in respect of back to back contract the profit is at 0.84%, since there is only commission in it. However, the fact remains that what assessee claims of net profit of 7.12% on overall contracts is factually incorrect

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NAOLIN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit,Circle-16(1) Vs. M/S. Naolin Infrastructure 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 6-3-1090/1/3, 3Rd Floor Masab Tank Uma Hyderabad House Hyderabad-500 004 Rajbhavan Road Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082

Section 115JB. Hence, tax in computed as per normal provisions. Demand notice u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is enclosed herewith. Penalty proceedings u/s.271 (1 )(e) of the I.TAct. is initiated separately. 4. It was submitted that feeling aggrieved by the order, the assessee had preferred the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) had granted

DIVJYOT CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V. RANGAREDDY vs. ITO., WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciation. Hence, passing orders levying a penalty when the quantum orders are not yet finalized is bad in law and hence, the penalty levied needs to be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the penalty order passed by the learned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

156 ITR 542) categorically held: " In this case, admittedly, the borrowing has not been made exclusively and solely for the purpose of earning interest in which case alone it should be taken as an income which should be deducted from the interest receipts." An assessee-company may have raised its capital by issue of shares or debentures or by borrowing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

156 ITR 542) categorically held: " In this case, admittedly, the borrowing has not been made exclusively and solely for the purpose of earning interest in which case alone it should be taken as an income which should be deducted from the interest receipts." An assessee-company may have raised its capital by issue of shares or debentures or by borrowing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

156 ITR 542) categorically held: " In this case, admittedly, the borrowing has not been made exclusively and solely for the purpose of earning interest in which case alone it should be taken as an income which should be deducted from the interest receipts." An assessee-company may have raised its capital by issue of shares or debentures or by borrowing

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

156 of the paper book no.1), where the assessee was required to mention Rs.915,17,72,291/- against “any amount debited to the profit and loss account of the previous year but disallowable under section 43B.” Instead, the assessee inadvertently mentioned Rs.914,10,56,673/-, which was the net figure after reducing the allowable payment of Rs.1

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

156 of the paper book no.1), where the assessee was required to mention Rs.915,17,72,291/- against “any amount debited to the profit and loss account of the previous year but disallowable under section 43B.” Instead, the assessee inadvertently mentioned Rs.914,10,56,673/-, which was the net figure after reducing the allowable payment of Rs.1

SUKESINI KUMILI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Nos. Assessee Revenue A.Ys 1536 To 1539/ Hyd/2025 Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad Pan:Ckmpk5466J Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1), Hyderabad 2015-16 & 2016-17 निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: || Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: | 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili ("The Assessee") Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2016-17. LAXMI PAVANA GAYATHRI MUKKERA CIRCLE 1.KARIMNAGAR 11. Undisputedly, the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) as well

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED MINARPALLY,MINARPALLY VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.140/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Primary Agricultural Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit Society Ward 1 Ltd Minarpally, Minarpally Minarpally, Nizamabad Pan:Aabap7760J (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: C.A Akshay Surana राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd Minarpally (“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 05.11.2024 For The A.Y, 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Page 1 Of 18

156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana), order dated 14.09.2023 U/s. 148(d) of the Act passed by the officer which is void ab initio. Notice U/s 148 can only be given by the officers of the Faceless Assessment Unit and such notice is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Hence, the Income determined/additions made by the Learned A.O. by passing

VASUKI KATAKAM,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1327/Hyd/2025

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form of the Assessment Year 2015-16. 3. This notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of the PCCIT, AP & TELANGANA accorded on date

SITAPURAM POWER LIMITED-ERSTWHILE AMALGAMATING COMPANY (NOW AMALGAMATED COMPANY-ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED),KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआआआआ आआआआ आआ./ I.T.A. (Tp) No.79/Hyd/2022 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Erstwhile Amalgamating Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of – Sitapuram Power Limited Income Tax, Pan:Aajcs2098E Circle-1, (Now Amalgamated Company – Nellore. Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa. Pan:Aajcs2098E (आआआआआआआआआ/ Appellant) (आआआआआआआआआआ/ Respondent) आआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ/ Appellant : Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra & Nitin Narang By आआआआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ / : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Respondent By आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ / Date Of : 15/05/2024 Hearing आआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of : 02/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

156 taxmann.com 89 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC). (ii) As per the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act, the directions issued by the Ld. DRP are binding on the Ld. AO and therefore

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Ble

156 acres of land at Veerapalli Village, Kothur Mandal, Andhra Pradesh. Both parties agreed to infuse the funds required to meet the project work from time to time by issuing further share capital of the company. The assessee firm has procured lands for the above entities for the purpose of felicitating the purchase of land in the first

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon'Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon'Ble

156 acres of land at Veerapalli Village, Kothur Mandal, Andhra Pradesh. Both parties agreed to infuse the funds required to meet the project work from time to time by issuing further share capital of the company. The assessee firm has procured lands for the above entities for the purpose of felicitating the purchase of land in the first

TANVI FOODS (INDIA) LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TANVI FOODS(INDIA) PVT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation, deductions etc.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 6. The CIT(A) after considering the details available with him upheld the profit estimated by the AO on the turnover and enhanced the income of the assessee from

TANVI FOODS (INDIA) LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TANVI FOODS(INDIA) PVT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation, deductions etc.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 6. The CIT(A) after considering the details available with him upheld the profit estimated by the AO on the turnover and enhanced the income of the assessee from

TANVI FOODS (INDIA) LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TANVI FOODS(INDIA) PVT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation, deductions etc.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 6. The CIT(A) after considering the details available with him upheld the profit estimated by the AO on the turnover and enhanced the income of the assessee from

S&P CAPITAL IQ (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF SNL FINANCIAL (I) PVT LTD),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 10A of the Income Tax Act. 8. It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal endorsed the view taken by the Ld. DRP in respect of the foreign exchange fluctuation gain to the effect that it is directly linked with the export business carried out by the assessee and therefore it has to be treated as income derived