VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

disallowance of Rs. 32,89,736/- under Section 40(a)(ia), we note that although the assessee firm did not substantiate its claim either before the AO or before the CIT(A), it has contended before us that tax was duly deducted and deposited within the prescribed time. In the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and

disallowance of Rs. 32,89,736/- under Section 40(a)(ia), we note that although the assessee firm did not substantiate its claim either before the AO or before the CIT(A), it has contended before us that tax was duly deducted and deposited within the prescribed time. In the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Section 250(4).. There may be cases where additional evidence is admitted by the first appellate authority on a request or application being made by the assessee. In such cases Sub-rule (2) of rule 46A requires the first appellate authority to allow the assessing officer a further opportunity to rebut the fresh evidence filed by the assessee. Even that

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Section 250(4).. There may be cases where additional evidence is admitted by the first appellate authority on a request or application being made by the assessee. In such cases Sub-rule (2) of rule 46A requires the first appellate authority to allow the assessing officer a further opportunity to rebut the fresh evidence filed by the assessee. Even that

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Section 250(4).. There may be cases where additional evidence is admitted by the first appellate authority on a request or application being made by the assessee. In such cases Sub-rule (2) of rule 46A requires the first appellate authority to allow the assessing officer a further opportunity to rebut the fresh evidence filed by the assessee. Even that

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Section 250(4).. There may be cases where additional evidence is admitted by the first appellate authority on a request or application being made by the assessee. In such cases Sub-rule (2) of rule 46A requires the first appellate authority to allow the assessing officer a further opportunity to rebut the fresh evidence filed by the assessee. Even that

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Section 250(4).. There may be cases where additional evidence is admitted by the first appellate authority on a request or application being made by the assessee. In such cases Sub-rule (2) of rule 46A requires the first appellate authority to allow the assessing officer a further opportunity to rebut the fresh evidence filed by the assessee. Even that

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

Section 250(4).. There may be cases where additional evidence is admitted by the first appellate authority on a request or application being made by the assessee. In such cases Sub-rule (2) of rule 46A requires the first appellate authority to allow the assessing officer a further opportunity to rebut the fresh evidence filed by the assessee. Even that

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

46A of the Rules in this matter. Further, there is no denial of the fact that in assessee’s own case right from the year 1999-2000, income of the assessee has been determined by resorting to estimation and dealing with other additions made. This fact is evident from the orders of the Tribunal for earlier assessment years and more

KMC CONTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

46A of the Rules in this matter. Further, there is no denial of the fact that in assessee’s own case right from the year 1999-2000, income of the assessee has been determined by resorting to estimation and dealing with other additions made. This fact is evident from the orders of the Tribunal for earlier assessment years and more

RAMYA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

disallowance under section 14A of the Act, but dismissed the appeal in respect of the addition towards interest on redeemable debentures to the tune of Rs. 52.92 lakhs. Assessee is therefore before us in this appeal. Ground No. 1 and 4 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. Ground No. 2 relates to the challenged the reopening

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in light of the various arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee along with certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Akry Organics Pvt. Ltd Vs. CPC (supra) and also the decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Rashmi Infrastructure

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in light of the various arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee along with certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Akry Organics Pvt. Ltd Vs. CPC (supra) and also the decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Rashmi Infrastructure

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

46A. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.29,61,24,000/ towards deduction claimed u/s.80IA in respect of other operating income from sale of metal, scrap and metals as such income cannot said to derive from an eligible business, in the assessee's case, from BOT projects. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

46A. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.29,61,24,000/ towards deduction claimed u/s.80IA in respect of other operating income from sale of metal, scrap and metals as such income cannot said to derive from an eligible business, in the assessee's case, from BOT projects. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

46A. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.29,61,24,000/ towards deduction claimed u/s.80IA in respect of other operating income from sale of metal, scrap and metals as such income cannot said to derive from an eligible business, in the assessee's case, from BOT projects. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

46A. The ld. DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made on this count and accordingly, upholding the order of CIT(A), we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue in this regard in AY 2008-09 as ground

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

46A. The ld. DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made on this count and accordingly, upholding the order of CIT(A), we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue in this regard in AY 2008-09 as ground

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

46A. The ld. DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made on this count and accordingly, upholding the order of CIT(A), we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue in this regard in AY 2008-09 as ground