DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 41(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.45,93,627/-. The said additions u/s.41(1) of the Act was made by the Ld. AO due to the reason that no details of the creditors to whom the amount was payable was produced by the assessee before the Ld. AO. 8.1 Feeling aggrieved by the order passed

SHASHIKALA RAM KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

disallowance of Rs. 63,65,549/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for not affecting TDS in respect of interest and financial charges, and Rs. 2,62,06,238/- under section 40A(3) of the Act for making cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in contravention of the provisions of law. 3. In appeal, assessee produced

NITIN BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

234/-, out of which the assessee’s share at 50% worked out to Rs.66,91,617/-. The assessee claimed deduction of the entire long term capital gain under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The assessee had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 02.03.2018 with M/s Sri Aditya Vamsiram Homes LLP for purchase

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. PAVITRAVATI GREENFIELDS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Pavitravati Greenfields Income-Tax, P. Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaecp0216E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/01/2022

234 B with potential tax effect of Rs. 1.02 crore.” 2.2. Against the Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) issued to the assessee calling for information, the AR of the assessee furnished the information called for. After examining the information filed by the assessee and material available on record, the AO finalized the assessment by disallowing an amount

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed the exemption of\nRs.18,14,003/- u/s.54F of the Act. The Ld. AR relying on the\ndecision of Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals (page nos.1 to 53 of\nthe case laws of paper book) and submitted that even if the amounts\nare invested in CGAS after the due date specified u/s.139(1)\nof the Act, but before filing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

section is about genesis or accruing or arising in India, by virtue of connection with the property in India, control and management vested in India, which are not satisfied in the present cases. Under these circumstances, withdrawal of earlier circulars issued by the CBDT has no assistance to the Department, in any way, in disallowing such expenditure. It appears that

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

disallowance of section\n54F of the Act is hereby deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is allowed.\nThe Revenue being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) has\ncarried the matter in appeal before us.\n6.\nWe have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both\nparties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the\nmaterial available on record, as well

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

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowed. 5.2. The appellant had attached the particulars of payment made for the purchase of a new property along with written submissions dated 27/07/2024. It is seen that a sum of Rs. 1.4 Crs has been paid during the period from 6/6/2015 to 18/11/2015. It is to be noted that subsequent to the sale of property on 31/10/2015, only

ADALA BHANU REKHA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

section and issue of notice u/s 148 is valid in law. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to note that all the information/ particulars/details were already furnished by the Appellant at the time of assessment proceedings itself and in the absence of any fresh/ new information, reopening of the assessment by mere changing the opinion

AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

Section 194C\nof the Act. Also, it was the claim of the assessee company that\namong the other expenses, some of the major expenses\naggregating to Rs.2,37,49,913.69 were incurred towards expenses\nthat were not liable for deduction of tax at source, viz. (i). travel\nexpenses of staff; (ii). travel fare (air); (iii). travel fare (train); (iv).\nother

VIBHA AGROTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Vibha Agrotech Limited, Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 17(2), Pan : Aaacv8157A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Ca P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit Date Of Hearing: 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dt.21.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 On The Following Grounds :

section 44AB of the Act and that there were no adverse findings in the Tax Audit Report with regard to the disallowability of the expenditure for Rs. 58,35,164/ -. 7. The Ld.CIT (A) had erred upholding the disallowance made u/s 14A for Rs. 9,410/ -. 8. The appellant may add or alter or modify or substitute or delete

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

disallowance of 10% of the expenditure that too only on Employee Cost and Administrative Expenditure. The Department also has filed a ground stating that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A of LT. Rules. 3. With regard to the ground taken by the assessee that the notice

SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

disallowance of 10% of the expenditure that too only on Employee Cost and Administrative Expenditure. The Department also has filed a ground stating that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A of LT. Rules. 3. With regard to the ground taken by the assessee that the notice

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 10(23C) of the Act. Hence, the provision of Rs. 2,81,14,669/- claimed by the assessee as application of income is not allowed to the assessee. Hence, we dismiss the claim of the assessee on this count. 15. The alternate argument submitted by the Ld. AR is that, even if provision of Rs.2

FUSION LASTEK TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowed by the A.O. while computing the income of the assessee company under the head LTCG on the transfer of the subject shares. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under: 9 11 13 9. The assessee company being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.01.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. At The Outset, The Learned Dr Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Revenue Has Filed Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Learned Ar Has Not Opposed The Condonation Petition. Considering The Facts & Circumstances & The Reasons Given By The Revenue, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

disallowance of any expenditure in the absence of any clinching evidence brought on record by the AO against assessee's claim though the Department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that the expense is a bogus. 3. The petitioner craves leave to amend, add or modify any of the above ground or add any other ground

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any\nspecific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to\nprovisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of\njurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction\nvs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

234/-. The assessee before us has not disputed that the profit element embedded in the additional works as reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee, were not received by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. However, the assessee denied that no evidence was found from the premises of the assessee and he has not received any amount which