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

RAMESH SISTLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, thereby\ndetermining the total income at Rs.13,00,94,230/-.\n\n5.\nAggrieved by the assessment order of the Ld. AO, the\nassessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, since the\nassessee repeatedly sought adjournments in response to notices\nissued by the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed by the Ld.\nCIT

NAVDURGA TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which

NAVDURGA TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

156\n2,12,730\n89,46,330\n15\n2,787\n17,612\n2,30,370\n75,65,570\n16\n1,739\n2,385\n2,07,820\n39,24,320\n17\n1,980\n3,274\n1,62,460\n44,49,860\n18\n19\n1,055\n5,986\n2,64,730\n29,73,330\n20\n803

PITTI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Pitti Holdings Pvt. Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle Pan: Aagcp3824Q 1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025

156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati), the Hon’ble High Court has held in para 13 to 19 as under : 9 ITA.No.450/Hyd./2025 10 ITA.No.450/Hyd./2025 11 ITA.No.450/Hyd./2025 12 ITA.No.450/Hyd./2025 13 ITA.No.450/Hyd./2025 14 ITA.No.450/Hyd./2025 15 ITA.No.450/Hyd./2025 16 ITA.No.450/Hyd./2025 14. Thus, it is clear that the issue raised

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JAYA BALAJEE REAL MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. C. I.T. Vs. Jaya Balajee Real Media Central Circle 2(3) P Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecb3005 F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.3/Hyd/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3/Hyd/2020) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaya Balajee Real Media P Vs. Dy. C. I.T. Ltd, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aaecb3005 F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.10.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Also Filed A C.O No.3/Hyd/2020 Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 19. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee filed certain additional evidences based on which he called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. After considering the remand report from the Assessing Officer and the rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, the learned CIT (A) deleted the amount

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 131 of the Act, have confirmed execution of work and furnished supporting details, though some had initially made contrary statements during search. 75. We further find that, the primary objections of the Revenue such as engagement of employees of group companies as sub- contractors, alleged lack of proper documentation and appraisal systems, deficiencies pointed out in internal audit