ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IRFANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. In 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED ZEESHANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. In 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. In 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. In 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance

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

Section 69C ITA Nos.737 & 881/Hyd/2025 4 of the Act: Rs. 34,58,38,297/-; (ii) disallowance of depreciation: Rs. 3,11,24,473/-; (iii) disallowance

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

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

Section 69C\nof the Act: Rs. 34,58,38,297/-; (ii) disallowance of depreciation:\nRs. 3,11,24,473/-; (iii) disallowance

AMRCL KCL (JV),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

disallowed under Section 40a(ia) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the reasons given by the A.O. rejected the explanation of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the A.O. towards difference in subcontract expenditure of Rs. 50,77,015/- under Section 69C

INTEGRATED GAS CONTROLS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

disallowed u/s 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 69C. In order to invoke

ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. MANISHA DIXIT, VANASTHALIPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Section 69C of the Act and disallowed the same. The\nassessment of the assessee was completed under Section 143(3)\nr.w.s

SRI ABHISHEK STEEL AND POWER LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Abhishek Steel & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Power Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pan – Aacca9140Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2021

section 69C, the expenditure has been incurred, booked and stands explained as to the source of such expenditure, no disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. SURESH CONSTRUCTIONS, GUNTAKAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowance u/s.37(1) of the Act. However the Ld. AO had added the alleged expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act by treating the same as unexplained expenditure. For the sake of clarity we extract the relevant part of section

RAMESH BABU SEGU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD.

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.137/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Ramesh Babu Segu, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Amrps2069N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri K A Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Ramesh Babu Segu (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 19/11/2024 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grouds Of Appeal:

disallowance under section 80C of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 153C of the Act vide order dated 27.03.2023, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,90,24,250/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. RAMESH BABU SEGU, HYDERABAD

69C of the Act. Accordingly, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.\n11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.1277/Hyd/2024 is\ndismissed.\nC.O. No.3/Hyd/2025:\n12. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his Cross Objection:\n\"1. The deletion of the INR 1,10,00,000/- addition under Section 69\nof Income

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. IL & FS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LIMITED , HYDERABAD

disallowance for sub-contract payment to Bangalore Elevated Tollways Ltd. and material purchases were also upheld.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "40A(3)", "40(a)(ia)", "194A", "194C", "69C

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance of expenditure. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the addition is not justified and is deleted”. 11. With the able assistance coming from Revenue side, it emanates from a perusal of the CIT(A) further that he has gone by Section 69C

ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance of expenditure. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the addition is not justified and is deleted”. 11. With the able assistance coming from Revenue side, it emanates from a perusal of the CIT(A) further that he has gone by Section 69C