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

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed on this ground alone

section 148A and 148 of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed for an amount being Rs.48,14,31,240/-, as against the returned income of Rs.12,74,95,910/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in disallowing

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowing the expenses 20 percent of total expenses claimed of Rs. 4,72,79,447/- on ad-hoc basis without pointing out any defects in the books of accounts maintained as same were allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 13. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that return of income filed u/s 148

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:

disallowance towards TDS and VAT payable under section 43B of the Act: Rs. 6,08,694/-; and (v) addition of Rs.3,34,246/- on account of estimated profit on undisclosed sales: Rs.3,34,246/-, but at the same time declined the assessee’s claim regarding the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO, while initiating proceedings under section

SUDHEER PARIMALA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.758/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Sudheer Parimala, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 016. Vs. Ward-10(1), Hyderabad. Pan Ahppp7572E Pin - 500 004. Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ca Kranthi Palivela & Ca Mrudulatha For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order

148 of the Act and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act have been issued are already taken up in the rectification proceedings vide notice dated 20.01.2022. It is pertinent to refer to the grounds taken in the rectification notice under Section 154 of the Act which are extracted hereunder: "1. On perusal of the assessment order

THULASI CHAMARTHY,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction, viz., (i) under section 54EC: Rs.50 lakhs; and (ii) under section 54F: Rs.61,03,380/-, vide his order passed under section 147 5 Tulasi Chamarthy vs. ITO r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 29/02/2024 and determined the short term capital gain on the sale of the subject property of Rs.81

DESU ENTERPRISES,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.549 & 589/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2013-14) 1. M/S. Desu Enterprises, Ongole (A.P.) Pan: Aagfd1940C 2. Thalla Srisailam Goud, Ibrahimpatnam. Pan: Αιτpg3044K (Appellants) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. (Respondents) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr & Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Desu Enterprises & Shri Thalla Srisailam Goud (“The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 26.02.2024 & 09.04.2024 For The A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

disallowing the grounds of the Appellant both -on facts of the case and in Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have noticed that the notice u/s 148 of the old law having been issued on 01.04.2021, the entire assessment proceedings consequent to such notice are bad in law in the light of the decision

THALLA SRISAILAM GOUD,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowing the grounds of the Appellant both -on facts of the case and in Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have noticed that the notice u/s 148 of the old law having been issued on 01.04.2021, the entire assessment proceedings consequent to such notice are bad in law in the light of the decision

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

148 in the assessment order on page A while neglecting to issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2), which is contrary to the provisions of law. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Rs.6,54,33,770/-; and (ii) transfer pricing adjustment as suggested by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TP), Hyderabad, dated 28/10/2011: Rs.21,85,04,408/-. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 11. On perusal of the CIT(A) order, we find that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. STYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowing the exemption claimed in respect of long terms capital gains and by considering the same as unexplained money. (iii) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid even on the ground that such notice was issued without approval from the authority as specified in S.151

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

disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs 6,45,461 U/s 80P of the Act 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the amended provisions of Section 80P are not applicable to the assessment year 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing the return was due to the delay

UJWALA PUBLICATIONS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,WARANGAL vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

disallowance alone stands restored back to the Assessing Officer in the preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. This appeal ITA 666/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Coming to this assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.667/Hyd/2020, we find that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment on 18.02.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 followed by his section 148

KAPIL INFRA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

disallowance alone stands restored back to the Assessing Officer in the preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. This appeal ITA 666/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Coming to this assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.667/Hyd/2020, we find that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment on 18.02.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 followed by his section 148

INDUR DEVELOPERS AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

disallowance alone stands restored back to the Assessing Officer in the preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. This appeal ITA 666/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Coming to this assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.667/Hyd/2020, we find that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment on 18.02.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 followed by his section 148

PREETHI FOODS AND VILLAS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KHAMMAM vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

disallowance alone stands restored back to the Assessing Officer in the preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. This appeal ITA 666/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Coming to this assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.667/Hyd/2020, we find that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment on 18.02.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 followed by his section 148

KAUSALYA MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

disallowance alone stands restored back to the Assessing Officer in the preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. This appeal ITA 666/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Coming to this assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.667/Hyd/2020, we find that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment on 18.02.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 followed by his section 148

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

disallowance alone stands restored back to the Assessing Officer in the preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. This appeal ITA 666/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Coming to this assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.667/Hyd/2020, we find that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment on 18.02.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 followed by his section 148