DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowed U/s.40A(3) and is added to the total income of the assessee. 14.1 On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue at pages 70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely unsubstantiated and no confirmation

AISWARYA ART CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE -13, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Aiswarya Art Vs. Income Tax Officer, Creations Pvt. Ltd., Ward 15(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aagca7479J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Kumar Aditya, (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.10.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.04.05.2018 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Satellite Rights. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 2 26.12.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.17,47,243. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly, Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Were Issued. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee For Which Summon U/S. 131 Of The Act Was Issued & The Statement Of The Assessee Was Recorded On 29.01.2014 Wherein He Agreed To Furnish The Required Information By 30.01.2014. Since There Was No Compliance Despite Number Of Opportunities, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Complete The Assessment U/S.144 Of The Act.

section, only an amount of Rs.50,000/- has to be disallowed. The AO while commenting on salaries and wages having regard to evidences produced, proposed disallowance of Rs.3,17,575/-. The appellant also not adduced any evidence. Hence the same require disallowance. In view of the above discussions and also considering non-submission of any evidence by the appellant rebutting

SGD PHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp Nos.130 & 447/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S. Sgd Pharma India Vs. Dy.Cit/I.T.O Private Limited, Ward/Circle 3 (1) Mahabubnagar Hyderabad Pan:Aadcc7815K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. K. Haritha, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

section 43B of the Act. Since the said verification has not been carried out, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore this issue to the Page 12 of 14 ITA No 130 and 447 of 2022 SGD Pharma India P Ltd file of the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO is directed to verify from the records

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. MVVS ALIENS (JV), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in foregoing terms

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

section 40(a)(ia). It is against this order that the present appeal is filed contesting the disallowance made . 4.During the appellate proceedings it is submitted by the assessee that the constituents of JV agreed to execute the contract. As per the understanding of JV partners the entire work was entrusted to M/s. ADPL. It is argued that the agreement

S LALAIAH & CO,NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act, dated 31/12/2009, wherein he after, inter alia, making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i) addition of the outstanding liability shown by the assessee firm as payable as on 31/03/2004 to IOC Ltd.: Rs. 38,14,269/-; and (ii) disallowance

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed interest amount of Rs. 1,94,52,069/- claimed by the assessee in P&L Account treating it as capital expenditure. 10.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 34 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 10.2 The ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions on this issue, which are as under: “During

THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD., KOTHJAGUDEM,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CITT, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed interest amount of Rs. 1,94,52,069/- claimed by the assessee in P&L Account treating it as capital expenditure. 10.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 34 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 10.2 The ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions on this issue, which are as under: “During

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed interest amount of Rs. 1,94,52,069/- claimed by the assessee in P&L Account treating it as capital expenditure. 10.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 34 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 10.2 The ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions on this issue, which are as under: “During

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed interest amount of Rs. 1,94,52,069/- claimed by the assessee in P&L Account treating it as capital expenditure. 10.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 34 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 10.2 The ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions on this issue, which are as under: “During

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed interest amount of Rs. 1,94,52,069/- claimed by the assessee in P&L Account treating it as capital expenditure. 10.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 34 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 10.2 The ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions on this issue, which are as under: “During

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed interest amount of Rs. 1,94,52,069/- claimed by the assessee in P&L Account treating it as capital expenditure. 10.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 34 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 10.2 The ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions on this issue, which are as under: “During

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed interest amount of Rs. 1,94,52,069/- claimed by the assessee in P&L Account treating it as capital expenditure. 10.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 34 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 10.2 The ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions on this issue, which are as under: “During

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed interest amount of Rs. 1,94,52,069/- claimed by the assessee in P&L Account treating it as capital expenditure. 10.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 34 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 10.2 The ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions on this issue, which are as under: “During

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed interest amount of Rs. 1,94,52,069/- claimed by the assessee in P&L Account treating it as capital expenditure. 10.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 34 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 10.2 The ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions on this issue, which are as under: “During

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 37 of\nthe Act and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs.\n2,42,00,000/-.\n16. Aggrieved, by the order of Ld. CIT(A), now the revenue is in\nappeal before the Tribunal.\n17. The Ld. CIT-DR Ms. U. Mini Chandran, submitted that the\nLd. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards\nunexplained expenditure without appreciating

CYBERMATE INFOTEK LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Cybermate Infotek Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4776F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021

269/- u/s 43B of the Act. 7.2 The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that even before him the assessee failed to produce the evidence for statutory of liabilities cited supra. 7.3 Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the statutory liabilities were paid before the due date of filing of return income

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

269, 270, 273 and 274 of 2008) is in favour of the assessee. Hence the modification proposed by the AO does not amount to mistake apparent from record for the purpose of application of section 154 of the Act. In this regard we rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases including the following

ANRAK ALUMINIUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms

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

Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules in arriving proportionate interest expenditure disallowance of Rs.3,37,63,307/-. Case records and more particularly para 3.4 of the assessment order suggests that the assessee was found to have made investments of Rs.17,41,46,612/- relating to its exempt income from dividends to the tune

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

disallowed.” 14. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Benches, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Ld. CIT (A) to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for delay in filing