RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

VISHAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vishal Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aympj0559M. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have

C5 INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.332/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) C5 Infra (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Secunderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aafcc2138K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

69C of the Act. However, since the payment was made in cash in contravention of section 40A(3), therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to consider the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act as held under page 61 as under: “To Summnarize, ize, the addition made of Rs.7,50,10,000/- by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

69C of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 21/02/2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,41,94,492/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success. As the assessee company 5 Kineta Global Limited vs. DCIT

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution of infrastructure

NAVDURGA TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings, we are 7 ITA 218 and 219/Hyd/2025 Navadurga Transport Company vs. ITO unable to persuade ourselves to accept the same. As observed by the CIT(A) and rightly so, as the AO at the stage of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act is only required to have some material available with him, based on which

NAVDURGA TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings, we are 7 ITA 218 and 219/Hyd/2025 Navadurga Transport Company vs. ITO unable to persuade ourselves to accept the same. As observed by the CIT(A) and rightly so, as the AO at the stage of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act is only required to have some material available with him, based on which