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 under section 43B of the Act: Rs.6,08,594/-; (vi) addition of undisclosed interest income: Rs.2,46,769/- ; and (vii) addition of undisclosed sales: Rs.3,34,246

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

disallowances; as the case may be. We advert to the basic relevant facts. 3. The assessee-company manufacture iron and steel involving re-rolling, TMT Bars etc. It had filed its return of income on 08-09-2010 in the “lead AY.2010-11” declaring income of Rs.72,10,790/- which stood “summarily” processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. The department

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

disallowances; as the case may be. We advert to the basic relevant facts. 3. The assessee-company manufacture iron and steel involving re-rolling, TMT Bars etc. It had filed its return of income on 08-09-2010 in the “lead AY.2010-11” declaring income of Rs.72,10,790/- which stood “summarily” processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. The department

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

disallowances; as the case may be. We advert to the basic relevant facts. 3. The assessee-company manufacture iron and steel involving re-rolling, TMT Bars etc. It had filed its return of income on 08-09-2010 in the “lead AY.2010-11” declaring income of Rs.72,10,790/- which stood “summarily” processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. The department

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

disallowances; as the case may be. We advert to the basic relevant facts. 3. The assessee-company manufacture iron and steel involving re-rolling, TMT Bars etc. It had filed its return of income on 08-09-2010 in the “lead AY.2010-11” declaring income of Rs.72,10,790/- which stood “summarily” processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. The department

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

disallowances; as the case may be. We advert to the basic relevant facts. 3. The assessee-company manufacture iron and steel involving re-rolling, TMT Bars etc. It had filed its return of income on 08-09-2010 in the “lead AY.2010-11” declaring income of Rs.72,10,790/- which stood “summarily” processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. The department

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

disallowances; as the case may be. We advert to the basic relevant facts. 3. The assessee-company manufacture iron and steel involving re-rolling, TMT Bars etc. It had filed its return of income on 08-09-2010 in the “lead AY.2010-11” declaring income of Rs.72,10,790/- which stood “summarily” processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. The department

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

disallowances; as the case may be. We advert to the basic relevant facts. 3. The assessee-company manufacture iron and steel involving re-rolling, TMT Bars etc. It had filed its return of income on 08-09-2010 in the “lead AY.2010-11” declaring income of Rs.72,10,790/- which stood “summarily” processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. The department

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

disallowed claim to an extent of Rs.4,74,2747. 7. It is submitted that the assessment passed on 11.11.2011 under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO got merged with the subsequent reassessment order passed subsequently on 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) rws 153A of the Act. It is further submitted that the order passed under section

ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcm 09294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghunathan S. Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2019 O R D E R

section 14A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 ('the Act') read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') for disallowing interest expenditure amounting to INR 2,915,240 withtout appreciating the fact that the Assessee has not incurred any expenditure which is directly attributable towards investments in mutual funds. Facts of the case: The Company has investments

VEERA REDDY POSHAM,NALGONDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd/2025

246 Telangana. PAN AIJPP0376P (Applicant) The ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. (Respondent) vs. निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee by : -None- राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue by : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 13.03.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate

VEERA REDDY POSHAM,NALGONDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1830/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2022-2023 Veera Reddy Posham, The Acit, Nalgonda – 508 246 Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan Aijpp0376P (Applicant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

246 Central Circle-1(1), vs. Telangana. Hyderabad. Telangana. PAN AIJPP0376P (Applicant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee by : राज" व "ारा/Revenue by : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13.03.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,YERRAGUNTLA vs. ITO WARD-2, NANDYAL

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

disallowing the assessees' section 80P(2)(d) deduction claims in issue qua the respective interest income derived form fixed deposit in nationalised banks. The PCITs' revision direction under challenge herein forming subject matter of these two appeals stand reversed on the very analogy therefore. We lastly quote hon'ble apex court's ITA Nos.284 & 286/Hyd/2021 landmark decision Malabar Industrial

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,PAMULAPADU vs. ITO WARD-2, NANDYAL

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

disallowing the assessees' section 80P(2)(d) deduction claims in issue qua the respective interest income derived form fixed deposit in nationalised banks. The PCITs' revision direction under challenge herein forming subject matter of these two appeals stand reversed on the very analogy therefore. We lastly quote hon'ble apex court's ITA Nos.284 & 286/Hyd/2021 landmark decision Malabar Industrial

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,PEDDA HARIVANAM vs. ITO WARD-1, ADONI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

disallowing the assessees' section 80P(2)(d) deduction claims in issue qua the respective interest income derived form fixed deposit in nationalised banks. The PCITs' revision direction under challenge herein forming subject matter of these two appeals stand reversed on the very analogy therefore. We lastly quote hon'ble apex court's ITA Nos.284 & 286/Hyd/2021 landmark decision Malabar Industrial

SHUBHAM TRADING COMPANY,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., WARD 1, NIZAMABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

246 – Rs.10,28,016) claimed towards VAT & CST payment is disallowed and added to the total income. (Addition: 8,27,230)” 7.1 On perusal of above, we find that, the Ld. AO disallowed Rs.8,27,230/- based on the difference between the claim made by the assessee and the confirmation received by the Ld. AO from the bank. Further

M.S. NIRMALA L/R OF LATE M.B. SIVANANDAM,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HINDUPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the order of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Smt. Madhu Mehta vs. DCIT (48 ITR (Trib) 246) wherein it was held that reimbursement of expenses paid by the assessee to the clearing and forwarding agents cannot be disallowed

BGS SGS SOMA JOIN VENTURE,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Bgs Sgs Soma Joint Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Venture, Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 14(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aaaab 3714F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri V. Raghavendra Rao Revenue By: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee-JV. 3. When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) after discussing the issue at large with various case law, upheld the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 25,48,251/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order