DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

disallowance was done in revision proceedings under section 263 or in reopening proceedings under section 147 of the Act! the Appellant may not have valid grounds to question the same. In fact the DRP has also suggested the same. However! the AO without initiating proceedings under section 263 or 147! has resorted proceedings under section 154

DURGAMATHA HOUSE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD -11(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowance under section 80P(2) was made in the original assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act and not under section 154

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

Section 154 of the Act which are extracted hereunder: "1. On perusal of the assessment order u/s 143(3), it is seen that addition made of Rs.40,00,00,000/- on unexplained cash credits with regard to shares allotment to M/s. Cancer Treatment Services Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd. However, AO added only Rs.40,00,000/- instead of Rs.40

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

154 of the Act or appeal under section 246 of the Act. The assessee is required to choose the right course of action diligently which depends upon different facts and circumstances. 25.5 Nevertheless, the object for making the adjustment in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act or framing the assessment under section

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 :

disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act pertains to computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to levy of minimum alternate tax and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act to that

DURGAMATHA HOUSE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2020-21 Durgamatha House Building Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Construction Co-Operative Hyderabad. Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad. Pan : Aacad6852C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024

disallowance under section 80P(2) of the Act in the original assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act, but not under section 154

NICHINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY NICHINO CHEMICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NOW MERGED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.366/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nichino India Private Dcit / Acit Limited (Formerly Nichino Vs. Circle-5(1) Chemical India Private Hyderabad Limited, Now Merged) Hyderabad [Pan : Aaecn5394B] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ms.Suvibha Nolkha, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri D.Praveen, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25/09/2024

section 154 of the Act and due to the fact that the assessment proceedings were faceless, the assessee had no opportunity to put forth their case against disallowance

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita No.1142/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Anantapur District Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Anantapur. Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur. Pan:Aaeaa0133B (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Assessee Dr. D. Harish Chandra Rama, Ca By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 24/02/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 04/03/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited (“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 05.09.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Association Of Persons (“Aop”), Not Filed Any Return Of Income (“Roi”) U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). From The Information

disallowance under section 80P(2) of the Act in the original assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act, but not under section 154

LQ PAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1251/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Lq Pay India (P) Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Pan:Aadcl8417G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/03/2025 आदेश/Order

section 154. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the CPC disallowance of deduction under

APEX URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we herein direct the AO to vacate the disallowance of Rs. 13,200/- made by him. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1778/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Apex Urban Infrastructure Vs. Dcit, Private Limited, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aafcp1027Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Hyderabad, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 31/10/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Company Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

disallowance under section 14A of the Act is called for, had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154

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

154 of the Act, dated 10/11/2021, wherein he rectified the rate of tax applied and subjected the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C of the Act to tax under Section 115BBE, enhancing the demand substantially. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance

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

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

154 of the Act, dated 10/11/2021, wherein he rectified the rate of tax applied and subjected the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C of the Act to tax under Section 115BBE, enhancing the demand substantially. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, the disallowance

MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / नििाारण अपीलार्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance is not justified. 4. It could be seen from the impugned orders that while following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxxop Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154

MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / नििाारण अपीलार्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance is not justified. 4. It could be seen from the impugned orders that while following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxxop Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / नििाारण अपीलार्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance is not justified. 4. It could be seen from the impugned orders that while following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxxop Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154

VICTORY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, MEDCHAL,R.R.DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Victory Electricals Ltd., V Dcit,Circle-17(2) Plot No.8, Survey No.855, S. Signature Towers Ida, Medchal, Kondapur Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad Hyderabad-501 401

disallowances, was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) for an amount of Rs. 16,31,331/- by applying the formula given in Rule 8D(iii) r.w.s 14A @0.5% of the average value of investment in respect for which is exempt from the tax. The section 14A had been amended by the Finance Act, 2022 and after the amendment section 14A reads

GRANULES INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was claimed after reduction of foreign exchange loss of Rs. 9,44,39,942/-; hence, for the current A.Y. 2010-11 also it is prayed that the foreign exchange gain of Rs. 8,16,29,962/- (since rectified by order u/s 154 dt. 20/02/2018 to Rs. 6,06,08,866/-) shall

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13

154 of the Act by the AO, be held as bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in restricting the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act only to the extent of income from

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 154 for rectifying the mistakes apparent from record on account of tax liability computation which was not agreed upon and the Assessee has proceeded to file a appeal against the 154 order before the Honorable commissioner of income tax (Appeals). In this regard, the process of filing the appeal before the Honorable ITAT has been delayed and we request