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

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

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 2020-21 on 03-04-2023 determining total income at Rs.62,75,49,070/- by making additions towards unaccounted receipts from sale of used solvent / scrap of Rs.1,02,22,479/- and dividend distribution tax of Rs.38,01,30,472/-. 4. 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

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

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

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

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

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/-.\n4. The assessee has filed an appeal

ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. MADHUSUDAN RAO LAGADAPATI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had received some amounts from his NRI A/c and also from M/s. Virtual International Ltd (VIL), Mauritius. He was not satisfied about the genuineness of the transaction and the identity and creditworthiness of M/s.VIL. He therefore, treated it as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

SUJIT AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sujit Agarwal Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Aclpa3197P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.01.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & The Managing Director Of The Company, M/S. Sawaria Pipes Pvt Ltd. He Filed His Original Return Of Income For The Impugned A.Y On 30.12.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.20,13,600/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.70,200/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 12.01.2016. In Response To Notice U/S 153A Of The Act Issued On 6.9.2016, The Assessee Filed His Return

68 of the I.T. Act which has been sustained by the learned CIT (A) is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that the original return was filed on 30.12.2014 and the time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) had expired when the search took place u/s 132 on 12.01.2016. Thus

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who passed the order u/s 147 of the Act for the AY 2013-14 which is erroneous and bad in law as the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in a routine

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who passed the order u/s 147 of the Act for the AY 2013-14 which is erroneous and bad in law as the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in a routine

SPECTRA EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017, declaring a loss of Rs.1,07,26,510/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and notices

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer where the Assessing Officer has rejected appellants claim of sale of scrap which was accounted for in the books of accounts. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding Assessing Officer’s treatment of sale proceeds of scrap of Rs.70,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer where the Assessing Officer has rejected appellants claim of sale of scrap which was accounted for in the books of accounts. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding Assessing Officer’s treatment of sale proceeds of scrap of Rs.70,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer where the Assessing Officer has rejected appellants claim of sale of scrap which was accounted for in the books of accounts. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding Assessing Officer’s treatment of sale proceeds of scrap of Rs.70,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68