F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,190/- in its return, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, resulting in a disallowance of ₹5,13,01,761/- towards gratuity expenses under section 43B of the Act. This adjustment increased the assessee’s income to ₹ 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs. 1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2019-20 on 03-04-2023 and for assessment year 2020-21 on 31-03-2023, determining total income at Rs.495.03 crores and Rs.520.14 crores, respectively, by making additions towards deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and consequent dividend distribution tax under

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2019-20 on 03-04-2023 and for assessment year 2020-21 on 31-03-2023, determining total income at Rs.495.03 crores and Rs.520.14 crores, respectively, by making additions towards deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and consequent dividend distribution tax under

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

68 in respect\nof alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs.\n1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his\norder passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated\n26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-.\n5.\nAggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal\nbefore

MSN LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee by the Assessing Officer. After examining the material on record and the information furnished, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A of the Act, making addition towards sale of spent solvents and scrap of Rs.35,29,191/-.\n3. 1. The assessee has filed an appeal against

MSN LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee by the Assessing Officer. After examining the material on record and the information furnished, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A of the Act, making addition towards sale of spent solvents and scrap of Rs.35,29,191/-.\n3. 1. The assessee has filed an appeal against

ANJANEE VIJETHA KASTURI,KURNOOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

2) of the Act and considering the impounded material, books impounded in relation to survey and other documents produced after due scrutiny, the learned Assessing Officer by order dated 07/09/2017 accepted the return of income and concluded the proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Subsequently, learned Assessing Officer proposed rectification of the assessment order. He considered

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1330/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Krishna Constructions The Income Tax Officer, Nirmal. Telangana. Ward-1, Vs. Pin – 504 106. Nirmal – 504 106. Pan Aapfk1280K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri D Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar,Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). The procedure for handling Limited Scrutiny' cases shall be as under: a. In Limited Scrutiny cases, the reasons/issues shall be forthwith communicated to the assessee concerned. b. The Questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act in "Limited Scrutiny cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), , HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and the Revenue\nare partly allowed

143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for\n assessment year 2020-21 on 03-04-2023 determining total income\nat Rs.62,75,49,070/- by making additions towards unaccounted\nreceipts from sale of used solvent / scrap of Rs.1,02,22,479/- and\ndividend distribution tax of Rs.38,01,30,472/-.\n\n4. The assessee has filed

ANKITJAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our above observation

143(2) of the Act by the ACIT, Corporate\nCircle-1(2), Bhuwaneshwar, as having been issued without jurisdiction\nand quashed the same.\n23. On Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue, the Hon'ble\nApex Court had, inter alia, observed that as the record revealed that\nthe assessee had, participated in the assessment proceedings and not\nquestioned

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MSN LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

143(2) and 142(1)\nwere issued and served on the assessee by the Assessing Officer.\nAfter examining the material on record and the information\nfurnished, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s\n153A of the Act, making addition towards sale of spent solvents and\nscrap of Rs.35,29,191/-.\n\n3. 1. The assessee has filed an appeal

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. MSN PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

143(2) and 142(1)\nwere issued and served on the assessee by the Assessing Officer.\nAfter examining the material on record and the information\nfurnished, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s\n153A of the Act, making addition towards sale of spent solvents and\nscrap of Rs.35,29,191/-.\n3. 1. The assessee has filed an appeal against

MSN LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

143(2) and 142(1)\nwere issued and served on the assessee by the Assessing Officer.\nAfter examining the material on record and the information\nfurnished, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s\n153A of the Act, making addition towards sale of spent solvents and\nscrap of Rs.35,29,191/-.\n3. 1. The assessee has filed an appeal against

MSN LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

143(2) and 142(1)\nwere issued and served on the assessee by the Assessing Officer.\nAfter examining the material on record and the information\nfurnished, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s\n153A of the Act, making addition towards sale of spent solvents and\nscrap of Rs.35,29,191/-.\n3.1. The assessee has filed an appeal against

SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

68 are not adjudicated as the addition is deleted in the facts and circumstances of the as above”. 8. So far as the addition of Rs.9,91,15,015/- is concerned, the learned CIT (A) deleted the same by observing as under: “7.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions of the assessee. I have perused the profit

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

68 are not adjudicated as the addition is deleted in the facts and circumstances of the as above”. 8. So far as the addition of Rs.9,91,15,015/- is concerned, the learned CIT (A) deleted the same by observing as under: “7.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions of the assessee. I have perused the profit

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

143(3). As such, the amount that would have been payable to a contractor other than the interested companies for rendering the same services is worked out as under. For this purpose the expenditure figures of the immediately preceding year have been adopted as a starting point as the operations / activities of the assessee remained same during preceding year

KYORI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kyori Infrastructure Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P Murali & Co., Ca, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Samajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Bala Krishna Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.263 Of The Act Of The Pr. Cit-2, Hyderabad Dated 26.2.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Infrastructure Activity. It Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 30.9.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 27.12.2017 With The Assessed Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. P A G E 1 | 11 Assessment Year : 2015-16

143(3) is neither prejudicial to the revenue nor the same is erroneous. The Id. PCIT ought to have considered that provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked in a case where there is no loss to the revenue. In the present case, it can be duly established that there is no loss to the revenue and hence