BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Rs.5,47,454/- and Rs.4,13,765/-, respectively. 37. Insofar as the disallowance of sum of Rs. 2,76,00,000/- @ 30% of subcontract works for Rs. 9,20,00,000/-, we find that, the assessee has increased revenue and also expenditure by passing dummy entries

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

112 taxmann.com 252 (SC). 9. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the total expenditure incurred by the assessee which wad debited to the Profit and Loss account was Rs.68,26,342/- and out of the said amount, the assessee had suo motu disallowed the amount

THOTA RAMAIAH L/R T VASUNDHARA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the entire amount without appreciating the agreement copies, bank statements, TDS Certificates etc. Ld. AR further submitted that section 40A(3) of the Act is applicable only to those expenditures which were incurred by the assessee with an intention to evade the tax and not applicable to genuine business payments made in the regular course of business. He relied

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 80IB(11A) of the Act, were duly filed online by Mr. PSRVV Surya Rao, Chartered Accountant 79 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. [Membership No. 202367], Partner at A. Ramachandra Rao & Co. [FRN no. 002857S]; (iii). that the signed copies of all the “Form 10CCBs” (alongwith the screenshots of the acknowledgments downloaded from the Income

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

section 40 can only be made towards the expenditure which is claimed as deduction while computing income and cannot be made on capital expense as the same is not claimed as revenue expenditure.” 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is also the submission of the learned AR that if given

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

section 40 can only be made towards the expenditure which is claimed as deduction while computing income and cannot be made on capital expense as the same is not claimed as revenue expenditure.” 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is also the submission of the learned AR that if given

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

section 40 can only be made towards the expenditure which is claimed as deduction while computing income and cannot be made on capital expense as the same is not claimed as revenue expenditure.” 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is also the submission of the learned AR that if given

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

section 40 can only be made towards the expenditure which is claimed as deduction while computing income and cannot be made on capital expense as the same is not claimed as revenue expenditure.” 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is also the submission of the learned AR that if given

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

section 40 can only be made towards the expenditure which is claimed as deduction while computing income and cannot be made on capital expense as the same is not claimed as revenue expenditure.” 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is also the submission of the learned AR that if given

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

section 40 can only be made towards the expenditure which is claimed as deduction while computing income and cannot be made on capital expense as the same is not claimed as revenue expenditure.” 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is also the submission of the learned AR that if given

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

disallowance of expenses by accepting the additional evidence in the form of ledger extracts supported by vouchers submitted by the assessee for the first time before the CIT(A). x) Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity and time to submit the evidences/ proof to substantiate its claim which the assessee

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

disallowance of expenses by accepting the additional evidence in the form of ledger extracts supported by vouchers submitted by the assessee for the first time before the CIT(A). x) Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity and time to submit the evidences/ proof to substantiate its claim which the assessee

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

disallowance of expenses by accepting the additional evidence in the form of ledger extracts supported by vouchers submitted by the assessee for the first time before the CIT(A). x) Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity and time to submit the evidences/ proof to substantiate its claim which the assessee

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 92C of the Act 4.5. The AO/TPO erred in re-characterizing the nature of transaction from ‘Receivable’ to ‘loan’ which is not permissible u/s. 145 of the Act. 4.6. The AO/TPO Ought to have appreciated the fact that the outstanding receivables are consequential/ closely linked to the sale of services to the AE during the normal course of business

RAMESH BABU SEGU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD.

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.137/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Ramesh Babu Segu, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Amrps2069N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri K A Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Ramesh Babu Segu (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 19/11/2024 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grouds Of Appeal:

disallowance under section 80C of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 153C of the Act vide order dated 27.03.2023, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,90,24,250/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal I

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowed under section 40(A3) of the Act. In respect of balance amount of Rs.98,62,500/- reflected in the loose sheets, it pertains to development of the project in QM Nagar land belongs to Shri K. Raghuram Krishna Raju and the project got held up due to denial of permission by the Archaeological Department and the same

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

disallowing the short term capital loss of an amount being Rs.35,39,35,330/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in arriving at the unit loss of Rs. 1,53,71,792/-, and recalculating the short term capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant

KALBURGI CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 144B of the Act dt.23.11.2011. 2.1. Being aggrieved by the order dt.23.11.2011, assessee company filed an application u/s 263 of the Act before the PCIT – 2, Hyderabad, seeking revision of the assessment order dt.23.11.2011 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi wherein addition of Rs.6,17,73,273/- was made on account of adjustment u/s 92CA