ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the 8[Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] 9[or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the 10[Assessing Officer], except in the following circumstances, namely :— where the 10[Assessing Officer

ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the 8[Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] 9[or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the 10[Assessing Officer], except in the following circumstances, namely :— where the 10[Assessing Officer

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

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

section(u/s)\n37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without proper\nverification of the relevant records and supporting documents.\n,\n4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of INR\n25,85,800 made by the Ld.AO u/s 69 of the Act, by treating the cash\ndeposits as unexplained, without duly appreciating the evidence

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SARVEJANA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No 1511/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1406 & 1511/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit Vs. Sarvejana Healthcare Circle 3(1) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aamcs6700Q राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Satya Dinakar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

depreciation under section 32 of the Act. In view of the present facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the core issue arising from the assessment order, namely, the correctness of the method adopted for computation of goodwill. Accordingly, we set aside this issue to the file

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SARVEJANA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No 1511/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1406 & 1511/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit Vs. Sarvejana Healthcare Circle 3(1) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aamcs6700Q राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Satya Dinakar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

depreciation under section 32 of the Act. In view of the present facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the core issue arising from the assessment order, namely, the correctness of the method adopted for computation of goodwill. Accordingly, we set aside this issue to the file

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD vs. SOUTH ASIAN CERAMIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

depreciation. 3. Thereafter, the AO issued notices under section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that the assessee company had in its balance sheet disclosed “unsecured loans” to the tune of Rs.17,38,91,674/-. As the assessee company out of the total loans

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

46A of the Income Tax Rules. 4. Any other grounds that may arise during the hearing will be submitted before Hon’ble ITAT with kind permission.” 2. Also, the revenue has raised an additional grounds of appeal, as under: “Notice u/s 148 issued on 29/07/2022, in respect of initial notice under section 148, dated 28/06/2021, and reply on 01/06/2022

CURIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(AFTER MERGER AMRI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

depreciation as claimed by the Assessee is justified and as such allowable under the provisions of the Act. 4. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC has erred in not admitting the application for additional evidence as filed by the Assessee under Rule 46A. As such the said rejection

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARAHARI GANTA, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. Shri Narahari Ganta, Hyderabad. Pan Amapg 1122D …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R.) Respondent By : None. Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2014-15 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.28.03.2018 Passed In Case No.0282/Cit(A)-1/Hyd/2016-17/2017-18 In Proceedings Under Section 144 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

section 68 addition but also there can hardly be any dispute that the corresponding fixed assets have been held eligible for the corresponding depreciation claim. We thus conclude that the Revenue’s instant mutually contradictory approach does not deserve to be accepted. 4. The factual position found is no different regarding the remaining parties i.e. Sri Thata Naga Raju

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL, WARANGAL vs. NORTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF TELANGANA LIMITED, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

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

46A of the IT Rules 1962. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the amount disallowed towards claim of consumer Contribution Amortization of Rs.39,44,46,826/- after further verification, despite a clear finding given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment

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

46A of the Rules in this matter. Further, there is no denial of the fact that in assessee’s own case right from the year 1999-2000, income of the assessee has been determined by resorting to estimation and dealing with other additions made. This fact is evident from the orders of the Tribunal for earlier assessment years and more

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

46A of the Rules in this matter. Further, there is no denial of the fact that in assessee’s own case right from the year 1999-2000, income of the assessee has been determined by resorting to estimation and dealing with other additions made. This fact is evident from the orders of the Tribunal for earlier assessment years and more

ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation disallowed 127840 -- 127840 14A disallowance 148354 148354 -- Total 110298896 105159236 5139660 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as revenue are in appeal before us. 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under : “ i) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on facts as well

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation disallowed 127840 -- 127840 14A disallowance 148354 148354 -- Total 110298896 105159236 5139660 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as revenue are in appeal before us. 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under : “ i) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on facts as well

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation disallowed 127840 -- 127840 14A disallowance 148354 148354 -- Total 110298896 105159236 5139660 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as revenue are in appeal before us. 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under : “ i) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on facts as well

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMRUT PRASAD PATNAM , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, if produced for the first time before the first Appellate Authority. Having missed the bus and the matter travelled to the Appellate Tribunal, the admission of documents is to be governed by rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 discussed hereinbefore briefly. What I want to emphasise is that, if the documents

P AMRUTHA PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, if produced for the first time before the first Appellate Authority. Having missed the bus and the matter travelled to the Appellate Tribunal, the admission of documents is to be governed by rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 discussed hereinbefore briefly. What I want to emphasise is that, if the documents

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

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, if produced for the first time before the first Appellate Authority. Having missed the bus and the matter travelled to the Appellate Tribunal, the admission of documents is to be governed by rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 discussed hereinbefore briefly. What I want to emphasise is that, if the documents

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

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, if produced for the first time before the first Appellate Authority. Having missed the bus and the matter travelled to the Appellate Tribunal, the admission of documents is to be governed by rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 discussed hereinbefore briefly. What I want to emphasise is that, if the documents