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

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 duly appreciating the evidence furnished

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. 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, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

46A with regard to registration of Monster.com. After considering the remand report, rejoinder and the arguments of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) given a finding stating that the AO did not bring any evidence which has impact on the activity of the assessee by signing differently as Nanda Kishore and Krish Nanda. 19 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos

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