KRISHNA MURTHY ELLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.585/Hyd/2023 & Sa No.10/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.585/Hyd/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Krishna Murthy Ella Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aacpe6389G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

section 148 to 153 assess or reassess such income for such A.Y. Before initiating proceedings u/s 147 for re-assessment of any income, escapement of income should be proved and such escapement is based on fresh tangible material come to the possession of the Assessing Officer. In other Page

SYED AHMED ZEESHANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 26/12/2023, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, on 19/01/2024 and determined the total income at Rs.4

ASRA AHMED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 26/12/2023, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, on 19/01/2024 and determined the total income at Rs.4

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 u/s. 147

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 u/s. 147

CALLIDUSCLOUD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

vii. Robosoft Technologies Private Limited viii. Aptus Software Labs Private Limited ix. Ksolves India Limited x. Cybage Software Private Limited xi. Consilient Technologies Private Limited xii. Yanolja Cloud India Private Limited (formerly eZee Technosys Private Limited) (e) Exclusion of comparable companies: i. e-Zest Solutions Limited ii. Yudiz Solutions Limited iii. Rheal Software Private Limited (f) Not including companies identified

SIVAPOTHULURU VEERAREDDY GADLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

56,400/- Income from House Property Rs. 10,92,938/- Capital Gains Rs. 21,59,554/- Income from Other Sources Rs. 21,710/- Gross Total Income Rs. 45,60,602/- :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1685 & 1686/Hyd/2017 4.0. The long term capital gain admitted by the assessee was offered on the sale of his share of property of land admeasuring

SIVA SHANKER REDDY GANDLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

56,400/- Income from House Property Rs. 10,92,938/- Capital Gains Rs. 21,59,554/- Income from Other Sources Rs. 21,710/- Gross Total Income Rs. 45,60,602/- :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1685 & 1686/Hyd/2017 4.0. The long term capital gain admitted by the assessee was offered on the sale of his share of property of land admeasuring

AMSRI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

vii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned CIT(A) justified in restricting disallowance of interest attributable to diversion of interest bearing fund to so without going it merits of the case or without giving any cogent reasons for the same? viii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

vii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned CIT(A) justified in restricting disallowance of interest attributable to diversion of interest bearing fund to so without going it merits of the case or without giving any cogent reasons for the same? viii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed

AMSRI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDRABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

vii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned CIT(A) justified in restricting disallowance of interest attributable to diversion of interest bearing fund to so without going it merits of the case or without giving any cogent reasons for the same? viii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

vii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned CIT(A) justified in restricting disallowance of interest attributable to diversion of interest bearing fund to so without going it merits of the case or without giving any cogent reasons for the same? viii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed

GMR AIR CARGO & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LTD(SUCCESSOR TO GMR HYDERABAD AIR CARGO & LOGISTICS PVT LTD),SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

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 u/s. 147

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. PAVITRAVATI GREENFIELDS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Pavitravati Greenfields Income-Tax, P. Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaecp0216E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/01/2022

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”, on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of C1T(A} is erroneous on both facts and law. :- 2 -: M/s Pavitra Greenfields Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 2. The CIT(A} has erred in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case

BANDHO REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised

GREEN MANGOS REAL ESTATES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised

BHUVANESH INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised

AMRUTHA AGRO ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised

PRADEEPTHI INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

vii) (a). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the CIT(Appeals) is unjustified in confirming the addition made u/s 56(2) which is related to deemed income. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of grounds of appeal, if need be”. 7.1. The assessee has also raised