ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. PUJALA MAHESH BABU , RANGA REDDY

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

138\n4,329 1,548 1,160\n3,941\n8,48,910\n20\n21 322\n8,083 2,501 1,

NULAND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFIERS ,WARD -16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nuland Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Ward 16(2) Pan:Aaccn5235D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Rajender Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8.5.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2011-12. 2. There Is A Delay Of 545 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay Which Is Due To The Prevailing Covid. After Hearing Both The Sides & Following The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Suo Moto Write Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020 Order Dated 10.01.2022 Wherein It Is Held That The Period From 15.3.2020 Till

138 Taxmann.com 207 (S.C) and 119 Taxmann.com 285, he submitted that under identical circumstances, the additions made u/s 68 have been upheld. He accordingly submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 9. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and Page

HEXAGON CAPABILITY CENTER INDIA PRIVATE ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92B Explanation (c) inserted vide Finance Act 2012 as applicable with retrospective effect from 1/4/2002. Hon'ble Madras high court's recent judgment in PCIT Vs Reddington India dated 10/12/2020 in Tax Appeals 590-591/2019 also holds the same view. We thus, accept the Revenue's arguments in principle that interest on receivables is indeed an international

HARSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92B Explanation (c) inserted vide Finance Act 2012 as applicable with retrospective effect from 1/4/2002. Hon'ble Madras high court's recent judgment in PCIT Vs Reddington India dated 10/12/2020 in Tax Appeals 590-591/2019 also holds the same view. We thus, accept the Revenue's arguments in principle that interest on receivables is indeed an international

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

138,036 | 950,000 | 1,535,010 | 68,781 | 1,761,010 | 1,608,188 | | | 13,061,025 |\n| 7th |

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

138 taxman.com 416 (Guj). She further submitted that a claim for deduction under Section 80IA, in the original return filed under Section 139(1) is also mandatorily required to be supported by an audit report as prescribed under Rule 18BBB and in Form 10CCB and such audit report should be filed along with the return of income

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, MADHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

138; 3. Hon'ble Calcutta Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ho Hup Simplex IV [2018192 taxmann.com 106 (Kolkata - Trib.) Appellant has also placed reliance on the decision passed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITA T Hyderabad in case of one of its members i.e. NCC Limited, which are mentioned below: (i) Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited vs ACIT bearing ITAT

LATE VAMANRAO RAMALINGAM ARCOT L/R BY SANGEETHA VAMANRAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Vamanrao Ramalingam Vs. Income Tax Officer Arcot L/R By Smt. Sangeetha Ward 13 (1) Vamanrao, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aclpa4148G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A A.V. Saisudha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/06/2025 आदेश/Order

138 Taxmann.com 64. The learned AR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has not issued the notice u/s 148 after considering the objections of the reply of the assessee as per the amended provisions of the Act. Thus, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 on 5/4/2021 is invalid and liable to be quashed. The learned

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

68 of the impugned order and the learned CIT(A) took a view that in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years since there is no change of circumstances either in the nature of development works undertaken by the assessee. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) placed

KMC CONTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

68 of the impugned order and the learned CIT(A) took a view that in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years since there is no change of circumstances either in the nature of development works undertaken by the assessee. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) placed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

68,146 for AY 2012-13, Rs.6,51,24,122/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,90,18,114/- for AY 2014-15), since the appellant was unable to produce any evidences for cash expenditure incurred. 6.3.1 The grounds on which the retraction was made, and the arguments and contentions of the appellant’s AR on this issue, are also

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

68,146 for AY 2012-13, Rs.6,51,24,122/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,90,18,114/- for AY 2014-15), since the appellant was unable to produce any evidences for cash expenditure incurred. 6.3.1 The grounds on which the retraction was made, and the arguments and contentions of the appellant’s AR on this issue, are also

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

68,146 for AY 2012-13, Rs.6,51,24,122/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.2,90,18,114/- for AY 2014-15), since the appellant was unable to produce any evidences for cash expenditure incurred. 6.3.1 The grounds on which the retraction was made, and the arguments and contentions of the appellant’s AR on this issue, are also