BHEL LCC SOCIETY LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bhel Lcc Society Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaatb6430D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Sai Keerthana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance u/s 36(a)(va) of the I.T. Act towards belated payment of Employees Contribution to PF. Section 270A provides penalty for under reporting and misreporting of the income. For ready reference the said section 270A is quoted as under: Page 5 of 12 ITA No 732 of 2025 BHEL LCC SOCIETY

NTT DATA BUSINESS SOLUTIOS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

1)(va) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the same were deposited on or before the due date for filing the return of income. 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the relief claimed by the Appellant of INR 31,48,038 towards foreign

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 the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 27.09.2022, for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us: ITA No.1295/Hyd/2025 2 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

disallowance of Rs.13,76,205/- made under section 40(a) of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No.4 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 19. Ground No.5 raised by the assessee is in respect of initiation of penalty proceedings by the Ld. AO under section 270A of the Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings is only a consequential and preliminary

SKYBRIDGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, (TP)-2 HYDERBAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

270A. Furthermore, the company had claimed Rs. 8,61,457 as income tax for the assessment year 2018-19 under other expenses, which was required to be disallowed under section 37(1

KOLLURU VENKATESH,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Kolluru Venkatesh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Secunderabad. Ward – 11(3), Hyderabad. Pan : Cdopk7445J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

1,28,900/- under section 80C and Rs. 24,182/- under section 80D. However, only partial evidence for the 80C claim was submitted, and no proof was provided for the 80D deduction, resulting in the disallowance of the entire deduction. Penalty proceedings under section 270A

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

1) of the Rules. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in not following a consistent approach for SDT's on a year-on-year basis. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. Panel erred in appreciating that deduction under section 80JJAA

RAGHU RAMA RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

270A of the Act, in respect of additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of interest expenses under Section 36(1

RAGHU RAMA RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act, in respect of additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of interest expenses under Section 36(1

SRINI PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowances in its ITR and no details mentioned in ITR were found to be incorrect or erroneous, penalty under section 270A was not leviable for under-reporting of income”. This legal proposition is further supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., (supra), where it has been held that

KALBURGI CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1) of the Act. As the assessee had large international transactions, the matter was referred to the TPO, who made an adjustment of Rs.6,17,73,273/- towards fee paid for availing management services for arriving arm’s length price and passed order u/s 92CA of the Act on 30.07.2021 and initiated penalty u/s 270A of 3 the Act. Thereafter

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowed in the previous year. 7 ITA.Nos.125 & 474/Hyd./2022 Investment allowance under Section 32AD 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO, under the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation

BABA AKHILA SAI JYOTHI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.987/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Vs. Dy. Cit Industries Private Ltd Circle 1 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcb3413C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 6/8/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.5,80,424/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 8

disallowing the said amount in the return of income. Provisions of sub-section 6 of section 270A carves out an exception to section 270A which reads as under: “270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. (1

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowance of CSR expenses of Rs. 1,42,97,133/- against the returned income of Rs. 50,81,16,931/-. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved, the assessee raised certain objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also going through the material available on record, dismissed the objections raised by the assessee. Thereafter

ASRA AHMED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

1. The final assessment order passed by the ADIT (INT TAXN)-2 (herein after referred to as “AO” is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld.A.O. grossly erred in invoking the provisions of sec.153C of the I.T.Act without there being any incriminating material found

SYED AHMED ZEESHANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

1. The final assessment order passed by the ADIT (INT TAXN)-2 (herein after referred to as “AO” is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld.A.O. grossly erred in invoking the provisions of sec.153C of the I.T.Act without there being any incriminating material found

EXCELRA KNOWLEDGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.545/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Excelra Knowledge Vs. Dy.Cit Solutions Private Limited Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcg5715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19. Page 1 Of 8

270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. (1)…… 2……. 3……... 4……… 5…….. .(6)The under-reported income, for the purposes of this section, shall not include the following, namely:— (a)the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

OLECTRA GREENTECH LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri L.P.Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

1 of 19 ITA No 63 of 2022 Olectra Greentech Ltd Secunderabad 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the order of the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019 for the AY 2018-19 is erroneous both on facts