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

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

3) The Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the books of account of the appellant, by involving the provisions of section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 4) The Assessing Officer ought not to have estimated the net profit @ 12.5% on the entire gross contract works of Rs.306.31 crores that consist of works carried on own as principle contractor

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

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

3) The Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the books of account of the appellant, by involving the provisions of section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 4) The Assessing Officer ought not to have estimated the net profit @ 12.5% on the entire gross contract works of Rs.306.31 crores that consist of works carried on own as principle contractor

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

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

3) The Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the books of account of the appellant, by involving the provisions of section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 4) The Assessing Officer ought not to have estimated the net profit @ 12.5% on the entire gross contract works of Rs.306.31 crores that consist of works carried on own as principle contractor

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

3,11,24,473 under section(u/s) 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) , without proper verification of the relevant records and supporting documents. 4. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of INR 25,85,800 made by the Ld.AO u/s 69 of the Act, by treating the cash deposits as unexplained, without

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and

3,11,24,473 under section(u/s) 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without proper verification of the relevant records and supporting documents. , 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of INR 25,85,800 made by the Ld.AO u/s 69 of the Act, by treating the cash deposits as unexplained, without

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

SECTION 234B OF THE ACT 17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Ld. AO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act and the said levy of interest being wholly unjustified, ought

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

3) of the I.T. Act.” 60. Feeling aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee has preferred proceedings before DRP and the DRP in his directions at Page 59 of the Paper Book has decided the issue against the assessee observing as under : “2.9 Grounds of Objection No 11: Recovery of salary expense is at arm's length. Ground

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

3) of the I.T. Act.” 60. Feeling aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee has preferred proceedings before DRP and the DRP in his directions at Page 59 of the Paper Book has decided the issue against the assessee observing as under : “2.9 Grounds of Objection No 11: Recovery of salary expense is at arm's length. Ground

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

3) of the I.T. Act.” 60. Feeling aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee has preferred proceedings before DRP and the DRP in his directions at Page 59 of the Paper Book has decided the issue against the assessee observing as under : “2.9 Grounds of Objection No 11: Recovery of salary expense is at arm's length. Ground

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

3) of the I.T. Act.” 60. Feeling aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee has preferred proceedings before DRP and the DRP in his directions at Page 59 of the Paper Book has decided the issue against the assessee observing as under : “2.9 Grounds of Objection No 11: Recovery of salary expense is at arm's length. Ground

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

3) of the I.T. Act.” 60. Feeling aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee has preferred proceedings before DRP and the DRP in his directions at Page 59 of the Paper Book has decided the issue against the assessee observing as under : “2.9 Grounds of Objection No 11: Recovery of salary expense is at arm's length. Ground

OPEN TEXT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

234B of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,11,35,170 and the same is consequential to the above grounds. 15. Erroneous calculation of Interest u/s 234C of the Act. That on facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as in facts in computing the interest u/s 234C

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

3) inhere, as a result of an order of reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 153A. the amount on which interest was payable in respect of shortfall in payment of advance tux /Or any financial year under sub-section (1) is increased, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

3) inhere, as a result of an order of reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 153A. the amount on which interest was payable in respect of shortfall in payment of advance tux /Or any financial year under sub-section (1) is increased, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

3) inhere, as a result of an order of reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 153A. the amount on which interest was payable in respect of shortfall in payment of advance tux /Or any financial year under sub-section (1) is increased, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent

BIOGENEX LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation and allowance of Rs. 1,87,83,938/-under section 35(4) of the Act while passing the Final Assessment Order dated 27.01.2022. 9. The Ld. AO/ TPO / DRP erred in not considering the MAT credit of Rs. 27,66,279/- available under section 115JB of the Act while passing the Final Assessment Order dated

LAXMI VENKATA KRISHNA RICE CORPORATION,NALGONDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURYAPET

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)

234B of the 1.T.Act; 9) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing”. 2. Also, the assessee has raised the following additional ground of appeal, which reads as under: "The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the notice u/s 148A(b), the order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148 were

MALAXMI AGRI VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Malaxmi Agri Ventures Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Hyderabad Ward 16(4) Pan:Aaccc6517F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri K P R R Murty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2015-16

3. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in rejecting the claim of the Appellant that the Appellant is carrying on business operations, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in not considering the fact that the Appellant falls in the definition of section 2(13) of the Act, under