KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63,000/-. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri S. Rama

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63,000/-. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri S. Rama

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63,000/-. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri S. Rama

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

156 of paper book no.1), where the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.933,43,12,325/- under the head “Any other item or items of addition under section

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

156 of paper book no.1), where the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.933,43,12,325/- under the head “Any other item or items of addition under section

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

disallowance paid at various project sites in cash mode. We make it clear that neither of the assessment orders before us has made any un- disclosed income addition despite the fact that there has been a long discussion on identical lines to this effect. Learned CIT- DR could hardly rebut the fact that Section 40A(1) itself makes it clear

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

disallowance paid at various project sites in cash mode. We make it clear that neither of the assessment orders before us has made any un- disclosed income addition despite the fact that there has been a long discussion on identical lines to this effect. Learned CIT- DR could hardly rebut the fact that Section 40A(1) itself makes it clear

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 :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

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

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1295/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Granules India Limited, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan : Aaacg7369K Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025

Section 270A of Rs. 82,63,156 for under-reporting of income w.r.t the disallowance of HEC of Rs. 4,81,53,591/-. 6. Aggrieved

WALDEN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 153C of the IT Act 1961, that the appellant had undisclosed income, on account of material found in the case oi searched person belonging to the assessee and not belonging to searched person, not having been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the case of I Shyam Prasad Reddy, who was subjected to proceedings

WALDEN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 153C of the IT Act 1961, that the appellant had undisclosed income, on account of material found in the case oi searched person belonging to the assessee and not belonging to searched person, not having been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the case of I Shyam Prasad Reddy, who was subjected to proceedings

KANTAR GDC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

156 is ‘notice of demand’, which itself states that notice u/s.156 of the Act is to be issued in case of demand only. The primary purpose behind issue of notice u/s.156 of the Act is to inform the assessee about payment to be made on finalisation of an assessment. However, in a case where the assessment resulted in a refund

KANTAR GDC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

156 is ‘notice of demand’, which itself states that notice u/s.156 of the Act is to be issued in case of demand only. The primary purpose behind issue of notice u/s.156 of the Act is to inform the assessee about payment to be made on finalisation of an assessment. However, in a case where the assessment resulted in a refund

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.2071 To 2073 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19) Synchrony International Vs. Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle 3 (2) Pan: Aadcr9682D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

section 144C of the Act on 10.12.2019 proposing the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,24,06,156/- and also disallowance

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.2071 To 2073 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19) Synchrony International Vs. Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle 3 (2) Pan: Aadcr9682D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

section 144C of the Act on 10.12.2019 proposing the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,24,06,156/- and also disallowance

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.2071 To 2073 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19) Synchrony International Vs. Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle 3 (2) Pan: Aadcr9682D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

section 144C of the Act on 10.12.2019 proposing the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,24,06,156/- and also disallowance

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act has rightly been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the impugned assessment year and he has relied on certain judgments while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act has rightly been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the impugned assessment year and he has relied on certain judgments while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee