ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. INDRANI PRASAD , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return. is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

145(1) is attracted to the facts of the present case. Under the mercantile system of accounting, what is due is brought into credit before it is actually received; it brings into debit an expenditure for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed. (see judgment of this Court in the case of United Commercial Bank

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) read with section 147 of the\nAct dated 20.12.2006. In the said reassessment, the Ld. AO rejected the books\nof accounts of the assessee under section 145

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

145 of the Act. 1.3. Ought to have appreciated the fact that the outstanding receivables are accrued from the sale of services rendered to the AE during the normal course of business and hence it cannot be equated to the term 'capital financing' as interpreted in section 92B of the Act. 1.4. Ought to have appreciated the fact that

SRESTA NATURAL BIOPRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Pin – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahcs9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

145 of the Act. 5 ITA.No.711/Hyd./2024 5.6. The Ld. TPO ought to have appreciated the fact that sales to AE includes a substantial profit element with interest aspect being embedded in it and therefore, interest on receivables cannot be coined as a separate "international transaction' as envisaged u/s 92B of the Act. 5.7. The Ld. AO ought

MBS IMPES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

145(3) of the Act. . "as Pvt. Ltd. 20. Without prejudice to other grounds, The Ld.CIT (A) erred in upholding decision of the AO in estimating profit of the appellant at 3.5% of the amount of Rs. :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 330 & 331/Hyd/2018 MBS Impes Pvt. Ltd. and another, Hyd. 34,60,47,806/- which has been treated

MBS JEWELLER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

145(3) of the Act. . "as Pvt. Ltd. 20. Without prejudice to other grounds, The Ld.CIT (A) erred in upholding decision of the AO in estimating profit of the appellant at 3.5% of the amount of Rs. :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 330 & 331/Hyd/2018 MBS Impes Pvt. Ltd. and another, Hyd. 34,60,47,806/- which has been treated

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 11/12/2018, had not looked into\nthe assessee's claim for depreciation/additional depreciation on solar\npower plant and thus, not formed any opinion on the said claim,\ntherefore, there can be no issue of any change of opinion by the\nsuccessor AO on the said issue on which no opinion was earlier formed.\nThe

BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

145 is not correct and bad-in- law. 16. The Ld. GIT (A) erred in upholding that the Ld. AO estimating the income of the assessee at an Ad hoc percentage of 8% of turnover is 3 Bilwa Infrastructure Limited vs. ITO un-reasonable and not based on comparative results in the similar line of business

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

3,20,42,152/-, which, thus, resulted to an addition of Rs. 25,63,372/-. 6 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO 6. Also, the AO observed that the assessee company during the subject year was in receipt of interest income of Rs. 92,069/-, which was subjected to deduction of tax at source (TDS) under section 194A

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

145 taxmann.com 37(SC), wherein it was held that where at the time original assessment u/s 143(3), specific queries were raised by Assessing Officer, which were duly answered by assessee company and thereafter assessment order was passed, it was not open for revenue to reopen assessment on same issue and, thus, impugned reassessment proceedings initiated on mere change

BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

145 of the Act and ought to have deleted the estimated income. 14. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding that the Ld. AO estimating the income of the assessee at an Ad hoc percentage of 8% of turnover is un-reasonable and not based on comparative results in the similar line of business. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought

VICTORY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, MEDCHAL,R.R.DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Victory Electricals Ltd., V Dcit,Circle-17(2) Plot No.8, Survey No.855, S. Signature Towers Ida, Medchal, Kondapur Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad Hyderabad-501 401

145 without recording the same in the accounts, then, such debt or part thereof shall be allowed in the previous year in which such debt or part thereof becomes irrecoverable and it shall be deemed that such debt or part thereof has been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts for the purposes of this clause.] [Explanation

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

3. Undisclosed Profit earned out of real 88,00,000 88,00,000 estate transaction 4. Unexplained cash 8,61,09,145 8,61,09,145 credits u/sec.68 of the IT Act 8. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 24.12.2018, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), during the course of appellate proceedings

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

3. Undisclosed Profit earned out of real 88,00,000 88,00,000 estate transaction 4. Unexplained cash 8,61,09,145 8,61,09,145 credits u/sec.68 of the IT Act 8. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 24.12.2018, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), during the course of appellate proceedings

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

3. Undisclosed Profit earned out of real 88,00,000 88,00,000 estate transaction 4. Unexplained cash 8,61,09,145 8,61,09,145 credits u/sec.68 of the IT Act 8. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 24.12.2018, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), during the course of appellate proceedings

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice