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

B. JANARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr Assessment Year: 2008-09

disallowances made by the A.O were confirmed by the ITAT only because the assessee has not been able to explain the investments to the extent of Rs. 1,15,000/- in the Serilingampalli property and also unexplained cash found at the time of search of Rs. 5 lakhs. He submitted that these may be grounds for making and confirming

KAMLESH RANKA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXATION-II, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Kamlesh Ranka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Intl. Taxation-Ii, Pan: Acbpr 3953 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D. Satyanarayana Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2019

disallowing the investment made subsequent to the due date of filing of the return U/s. 139(1) of the Act for the purpose of granting deduction U/s. 54 of the Act. While doing so, the Ld AO made the following observation: - “Cost of Acquisition: The assessee could not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim of cost

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

disallowance of the deduction claimed by the Appellant under section 80IA in respect of profits derived from the eligible business of developing infrastructure facility. He ought to have appreciated that, tested on the principles laid down by the judicial authorities, the appellant company was the developer of infrastructure facility, as defined in Explanation to Section 80IA(4)(i). and accordingly

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

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: a) In the case of MEPCO

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

disallowing the relief claimed by the Appellant of INR 31,48,038 towards foreign tax credits under section 90/91 of the Act, without considering assessee's submission and documentary evidence. 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in disregarding Assessee's claim for additional relief

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowance of INR 13,13,770 pertaining to leave encashment expenses claimed by the Appellant under section 43B of the Act 3.1 The learned AO has erred in not granting a deduction of INR 13,13,770/- /s.43B of the Act 3.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO UBER INDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowed 13. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred, and Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action of the learned TPO in not allowing the risk adjustment in accordance with the Rules to account for difference between the risk profile of the Appellant and that of alleged comparable companies

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

274/-. The return of income filed by the assessee Co-operative Society was initially processed as such under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O., taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee Co-operative Society had failed to deposit the employees’ share of contributions towards various welfare funds within the prescribed time period, which thus, rendered

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,,SIRICILLA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

274/-. The return of income filed by the assessee Co-operative Society was initially processed as such under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O., taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee Co-operative Society had failed to deposit the employees’ share of contributions towards various welfare funds within the prescribed time period, which thus, rendered

SHAVVA SUDHEER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." Page 3 of 17 ITA 402 of 2022 Shavva Sudheer Reddy 7. The AO, in our view, shall not be carried away

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F insofar the same pertained to the short-term capital gains of 5 Gaddam Mohan Reddy vs. ITO Rs.16,29,727/-. The AO while culminating the assessment, inter alia, initiated penalty proceedings under section 274

DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EAST INDIA PETROLEUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

disallow the depreciation is totally incorrect, devoid of merit and thus, rejected. 16. Having said so, let us come back, whether goodwill is an intangible asset in nature of any other business or commercial rights similar nature, which is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act or not. This issue is no longer res-integra. Hon'ble Supreme Court

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:

274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a "deduction provision" and not an "exemption provision". Therefore, apparently there seems to be a difference of opinion to whether section 10A/B provisions qualify as "Exemption" or Deduction" provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced in the Statute

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:

274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a "deduction provision" and not an "exemption provision". Therefore, apparently there seems to be a difference of opinion to whether section 10A/B provisions qualify as "Exemption" or Deduction" provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced in the Statute

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

disallowance of labour cess of Rs.40,76,414/- u/s 43B of the Act. 4. Subsequently, Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act was initiated and show cause notice u/s 274 read with section

LAKSHYA PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2012-13 Lakshya Pharma Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8214 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri D.V. Anjaneyulu Revenue By Sri M. Mahidhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2021 Order

section 251(2), also without providing the full remand report with annexure even after prayed by the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law confirming the addition of Rs. 33,47,325/- being the 50% of business promotion expenses of Rs. 66,94,649/- simply relied on the remand report of the A.O. without proper appreciation

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