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

9. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that on merit, the assessment order passed by the A.O in the name of the assessee, towards sale consideration received for sale of the property held by the family through HUF is invalid and liable to be quashed. The assessee has sold the property as a member of HUF and upon

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

9. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that on merit, the assessment order passed by the A.O in the name of the assessee, towards sale consideration received for sale of the property held by the family through HUF is invalid and liable to be quashed. The assessee has sold the property as a member of HUF and upon

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MAMBATTU VILLAGE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

vii) Hon'ble ITAT Pune in DCIT Vs. Rehau Polymers Private Ltd Vs. ACIT [2017 85 taxmann.com 23] viii)Hon'ble ITAT Pune in Skoda Auto India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2344/PU and 2012 ix) Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vijay television Pvt Ltd Vs. DRP [(2014) 369 ITR 113] 8. The Appellant most respectfully prays that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

vii) of the Act. The jurisdictional ITAT, Hyderabad in M/s.Vimta Labs Ltd, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle-7(2), Hyderabad (ITA Nos.11, 12 & 1273/2017) dated 24/04/2019 has discussed this issue elaborately and held that the business receipts of foreign residents are not taxable in India since the agents have no PE in India and therefore are not required to deduct

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

VII, Hyderabad. 8.1.2 The A.O, submitted a remand report dated 06/08/2014. The operative part of the remand report reads as under:- "In this connection, as directed the verification regarding the trail of money based an assessee's submissions before the CIT(A) whether such investment were made from tax suffered money or not was carried out in the following cases

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

VII, Hyderabad. 8.1.2 The A.O, submitted a remand report dated 06/08/2014. The operative part of the remand report reads as under:- "In this connection, as directed the verification regarding the trail of money based an assessee's submissions before the CIT(A) whether such investment were made from tax suffered money or not was carried out in the following cases

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

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

In the result, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Orchasp Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aabcc4776F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Yadagiri, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/03/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac, Relating To A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Appellate Order Passed By The Cit(A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant. 2. The Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Amount Of Investment Made Is Completely In Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company Which Is Revenue In Nature & Not A Capital Expenditure. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Accepted The Investments Written Off Of Rs.3,60,72,141/- Since The Said Amount Was Not Received From The Third Party To The Subsidiary & Thus, The Same Amount Was Written Off By The Virtue Of The Circular No. 69 Dt. 27-07-2011 Issued By Rbi.

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act since the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. 12. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Grounds of appeal No.1

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271 has no bearing on the question raised before us. There the concessional scheme tempted the assessee to disclose voluntarily all his concealed income and he agreed to pay the proper tax upon ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 9 2130/Hyd/2017 it. The agreement there related to the quantification of taxable income but in the present case what is sought to be taxed

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271 has no bearing on the question raised before us. There the concessional scheme tempted the assessee to disclose voluntarily all his concealed income and he agreed to pay the proper tax upon ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 9 2130/Hyd/2017 it. The agreement there related to the quantification of taxable income but in the present case what is sought to be taxed