ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

set off of losses and pass appropriate assessment orders and re-compute book profits accordingly. The present assessment orders under appeal were passed in consequence of above referred 263 order. 9.1 During the reassessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, HYERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

set off of losses and pass appropriate assessment orders and re-compute book profits accordingly. The present assessment orders under appeal were passed in consequence of above referred 263 order. 9.1 During the reassessment

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

set off of losses and pass appropriate assessment orders and re-compute book profits accordingly. The present assessment orders under appeal were passed in consequence of above referred 263 order. 9.1 During the reassessment

DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDRABAD vs. KALPTARU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1077/Hyd/2025

set off against other losses and incurred cash expenses amounting to Rs 2,93,31,831/-. This has resulted in income amounting to Rs.4,43,18,656/-(Rs 1,49,86,825/- + Rs 2,93,31,831/-) escaping assessment. Thus, the assessee has failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts concerning its income for the assessment year under

SUKESINI KUMILI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Nos. Assessee Revenue A.Ys 1536 To 1539/ Hyd/2025 Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad Pan:Ckmpk5466J Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1), Hyderabad 2015-16 & 2016-17 निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: || Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: | 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili ("The Assessee") Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2016-17. LAXMI PAVANA GAYATHRI MUKKERA CIRCLE 1.KARIMNAGAR 11. Undisputedly

AMSRI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Amsri Builders Pvt. Vs. The Dy. Cit, Central Ltd., Secunderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca2834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Amsri Constructions Vs. The Dy. Cit, Central Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafca5309Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri K.C Devdas Revenue By : Smt. B.K Vishnu Priya Date Of Hearing : 06-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2018 Order Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

losses or increase of income and therefore, the reassessment proceedings are not valid. 7. Even on merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not have funds to carry on its business activities and therefore had borrowed the funds, which were advanced to M/s Amsri Builders Pvt Ltd., as trade advances for land and also

AMSRI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Amsri Builders Pvt. Vs. The Dy. Cit, Central Ltd., Secunderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca2834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Amsri Constructions Vs. The Dy. Cit, Central Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafca5309Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri K.C Devdas Revenue By : Smt. B.K Vishnu Priya Date Of Hearing : 06-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2018 Order Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

losses or increase of income and therefore, the reassessment proceedings are not valid. 7. Even on merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not have funds to carry on its business activities and therefore had borrowed the funds, which were advanced to M/s Amsri Builders Pvt Ltd., as trade advances for land and also

GAJANAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment framed on 16.12.2011 disallowing/adding the short term capital gains of Rs.16,70,179 as not eligible to be set off against long term capital loss

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss & depreciation of earlier A.Ys which has already been set off against profit of other business. 17. We find that the AO has disallowed the claim u/s 80IB also for the following other reason: i) That the assessee has not filed the copies of the P&L A/c and balance sheet for the Midnapore Unit as certified

M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss & depreciation of earlier A.Ys which has already been set off against profit of other business. 17. We find that the AO has disallowed the claim u/s 80IB also for the following other reason: i) That the assessee has not filed the copies of the P&L A/c and balance sheet for the Midnapore Unit as certified

VASUKI KATAKAM,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1327/Hyd/2025

set-aside. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that an identical issue has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the case of Vijay Kumar Kamdar, Adilabad vs., ITO, Ward-1, Adilabad in ITA.No.618/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2016-2017 vide

ARKAY ENERGY (RAMESWARM) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

reassess such income or recompute the loss or the\ndepreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17\nand I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in\nthe prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2016-17.\nLAXMI PAVANA GAYATHRI MUKKERA\nCIRCLE 1, KARIMNAGAR\n11. Undisputedly

SHARATH KUMAR REDDY SAREDDY,WANAPARTHY, MAHABUB NAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, MAHABUBNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1096/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sharath Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Sareddy, Wanaparthy Ward – 1 Mahbubnagar Mahbubnagar Pan:Hpwps0712H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order

loss. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the doctrine of real income should be applied. This newly introduction of provisions of the Income Tax Act ensure only real income is chargeable to tax. He has referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Godhra Electricity

UNITED INFRA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

loss of Rs. (-) 80,19,280/- i.e., as was originally returned. 4. Thereafter, the A.O. issued notices under Section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act. The A.O., after examining the material available on record and the submissions filed by the assessee company, framed the assessment, vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s

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

setting off income of Rs.3,18,56,193/- against brought\nforward losses of Rs.4,74,89,404/-. The return of income of the assessee was\nselected for scrutiny and the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) passed an\norder under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 961 (“the Act\") on\n29.03.2004, making total disallowances of Rs.3

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. VINSRI INFOTECH, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyblock Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 M/S Vinsri Infotech, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 9(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabfv6806E Appellant Respondent & Block Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinsri Infotech, Income-Tax, Circle – Hyderabad. 9(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aabfv 6806 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasu Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

loss of Rs,47,80,881/-. The Assessing Officer did not approve of the expenditure declared by the appellant as he felt that the expenditure was not proved except for the purchase of books and came to a conclusion that it was fit case for estimate of “undisclosed income". The assessing officer estimated the income from the business

M/S VINSRI INFOTECH,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyblock Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 M/S Vinsri Infotech, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 9(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabfv6806E Appellant Respondent & Block Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinsri Infotech, Income-Tax, Circle – Hyderabad. 9(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aabfv 6806 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasu Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

loss of Rs,47,80,881/-. The Assessing Officer did not approve of the expenditure declared by the appellant as he felt that the expenditure was not proved except for the purchase of books and came to a conclusion that it was fit case for estimate of “undisclosed income". The assessing officer estimated the income from the business

KANISHKA 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

set off of any loss/ shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) [and clause (b)/ of sub-section (1)./ In the present case, the Assessing Officer has determined the addition u/s Section 68 and therefore the applicability of the Section 115BBE(1)(b) is valid