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

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

disallowed the same.\n5. Ostensibly, the assessee during the course of the assessment\nproceedings came up with a new claim, wherein based on a revised\nstatement of computation of income that was filed with the A.O.\non 29.08.2010, it was claimed by him that as the agricultural land\nsituated at Village: Manchirevula was not a “capital asset” within\nthe meaning

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

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

Bench: Us:

2,70,23,274/-. 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

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

Bench: Us:

2,70,23,274/-. 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

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

disallowed. This excess WDV resuted in excess claim of depreciation of Rs.3,37,71,787/-. 4 ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited ii. As per Schedule CYLA of ITR of AY 2017-18 (page 47), the assessee has a business income of Rs 7,42,25,071/-, short term capital gain

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

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

2,07,80,414 while computing the assessed income without giving effect to the Hon'ble DRP directions in this regard. b) making disallowance of INR 34,35,859 towards delay in deposit of employees contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the same were deposited on or before

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

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

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

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

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

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 INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE 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

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

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, the Assessing Officer has not specified the limb, under which, he proposed to levy the penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act i.e., whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard