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 u/s. 14A to the extent of the amount confirmed above of Rs. 14,00,000/- has to be added back to the computation of book profit u/s. 115JB therefore, the ground no. 1 (ii) is dismissed accordingly to the extent of quantification above. The ground no. 4 relates to the claim of the appellant that the income tax refund

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

B IT Towers, Masab\nTank, Hyderabad\nM/s. Lycos Internet Ltd, 5th Floor, Holiday Inn Express & Suites, Road\nNo.2, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500032\nPr. CIT -Hyderabad\nDR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches\nGuard File\n\nBy Order", "summary": { "facts": "The Department appealed against the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A and Section 36(1)(va) by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed against

N.A.M. EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the due date provided for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which attracts the provisions section 43B, however, the said amount 3

249(2), grant immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA, where, the proceedings for penalty u/s 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub section (9) of section 270A of the Act. In other words, the assessee can file application for immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270A, only in a case, where, penalty has been

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

disallowing the claim of loss from\nhouse property u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n16. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition as made by A.O of\nRs.13,024/- as interest income under the head income from other\nsources.\n17. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or\ndelete and/or rescind

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 10 ITA.No.650/Hyd./2023 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

b) Cooper Corporation Pvt Ltd., Vs DCIT, reported in ITA No. 866/PN/2014. (c) CIT Vs Woodward Governor India Pvt Ltd., reported 179 taxman.com 326 (SC) (d) Gati Limited Vs ITO, in ITA No. 1325/Hyd/2015. (e) Crane Software International Ltd., Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 741/Ban/2010. 6.2 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. CIT., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in filing of the Audit Report in Form No. 10BB, which is due to reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of the appellant. 9. The assessee may add, alter or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in filing of the Audit Report in Form No. 10BB, which is due to reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of the appellant. 9. The assessee may add, alter or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time

VALUELABS TECHNOLOGIES,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA-TP No. 1718/H/2019 A.Y.: 2015-16 Value Labs Technologies, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 8(1), PAN – AAIFV 6716 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date

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

B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment 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

KREATIVE HOSTS ATRIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kreative Hosts Atria Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P. Murali & Co., C,A, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aadck 2362 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , Ar Revenue By : Shri T.Sunil Goutham (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad Dated 28.5.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 .

B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , AR Revenue by : Shri T.Sunil Goutham (DR) Date of Hearing : 11/10/ 2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad dated 28.5.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14 . 2. The only

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

4)(iv) in respect of profits derived from the solar power unit. The return of income was filed by the assessee within the extended due date of 15th March, 2022. The audit report in Form No.10CCB was required to be filed before one month from the last date of filing the return of income. Accordingly, the extended due date

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.

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

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

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

DCIT., 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.

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

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

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

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

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

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

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case