CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as under : “5.1. The company has provided requisite disclosures in note 46 to the financial statements as to the holding of SBNs on November 8, 2016 and December 30, 2018 as well as dealings in SBNs during the period from November 8, 2016 to December

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as under : “5.1. The company has provided requisite disclosures in note 46 to the financial statements as to the holding of SBNs on November 8, 2016 and December 30, 2018 as well as dealings in SBNs during the period from November 8, 2016 to December

BALA REDDY GOPU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

173/- shown by the assessee company is on the loans but not the investments made in the equity. The assessee has made investment out of the internal funds and a borrowed fund does not have any nexus with the investment made by the company and no disallowance u/ s 14A of the Act can be made. Hence, as there

LCT FEEDERS PVT.LTD., R.R.DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri V. Durga Raoassessment Year: 2011-12 Lct Feeders Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D.No.6-158, Slns Colony, Ward-16(1), Balapur X Roads, Hyderabad. Meerpet, Rr Dist. 500 097. Pan: Aabcl 1919 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D. Satyanarayana, Ar Revenue By: Sri Rajeev Benzwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2019 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

173/- U/s. 10(2)(A) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in treating an amount of Rs. 1,14,97,812/- as the income of the appellant by applying the provisions of section 68

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

68 of the Act. 4.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding all the documents/evidence already on record, which proves the nature of the transaction as well as its genuineness as a loan given by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries to settle their subsisting

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

68 of the Act. 4.6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding all the documents/evidence already on record, which proves the nature of the transaction as well as its genuineness as a loan given by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries to settle their subsisting

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

173 (S.C) (iv) CIT vs. HLT Finance (P) Ltd (2011) 12 Taxmann.com 247 (v) CIT vs. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd (2013) 34 Taxmann.com 177 (vi) CIT (Central) vs. Som Tobacco India Ltd (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 310 (vii) CIT-1 vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 80 Taxmann.com 272 (viii) CIT Meerut vs. Nav Bharat Duplex Ltd (2013) 35 Taxmann.com

LATEEF ABDUL MOHAMMED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18

173 of the Paper Book, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the details of month-wise cash sales for the financial year 2015-16 which are as under: Page 4 of 11 ITA No 501 of 2021 Lateef Abdul Mohammed Hyderabad Month & Year Cash Sales April

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

173 taxmann.com 499 (Mum.). Order of ITAT, Mumbai in DCIT vs., Larsen & Toubro Ltd., 7. [2025] 175 taxmann.com 582 (Mum.) Order of ITAT, Pune in DCIT vs., Kolte Patil [2025] 235 TTJ 113 8. (Pune). 6.1. On the strength of the catena of Judgments/ decisions, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the notice issued

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 14A are not applicable. 6.10. Without prejudice to the above, erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.10,68,463/ - instead of restricting the disallowance to the extent of income claimed/ earned as exempt during the year. Additional Grounds of Appeal Without prejudice to the grounds no. 1 to 8 filed on 30.01.2018, herewith we submit: Each

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

173 taxmann.com 499 (Mum.). 7. Order of ITAT, Mumbai in DCIT vs., Larsen & Toubro Ltd., [2025] 175 taxmann.com 582 (Mum.) 8. Order of ITAT, Pune in DCIT vs., Kolte Patil [2025] 235 TTJ 113 (Pune). 6.1. On the strength of the catena of Judgments/ decisions, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the notice issued

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,78,721/-\nresulting in an addition of Rs.48,43,936/-.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee also filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nchallenging the consequential assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s.263 dated 29.03.2006.\n5.\nWhile both the above-mentioned appeals were pending before the Ld.\nCIT(A), the Ld. AO reopened

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,78,721/-\nresulting in an addition of Rs.48,43,936/-.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee also filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nchallenging the consequential assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 29.03.2006.\n5. While both the above-mentioned appeals were pending before the Ld.\nCIT(A), the Ld. AO reopened

ITO, WARD-1, KURNOOL, KURNOOL vs. S.V. MOHAN REDDY, KURNOOL, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

68 of the l.T. Act, 1961 are to be treated as the business receipts of agricultural commodities with out any evidence of purchase bills of the same and more so when these receipts are not even disclosed in the Return of Income filed by the assessee and taken this, after thought stand at the time of assessment to explain

MEDPLEXUS INDIA PVT. LTD., HYD,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Medpluxes India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaecm7007N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aliasger Rampurwala & Sri Abhiroop Bhargav Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 22-07-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-09-2019 O R D E R

section 234B and 234C of the Act. All the aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify, amplify or withdraw any or all the above grounds of objection, or add any further grounds, before or at the time of hearing.” 10 Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 6. Before

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

68,26,342/ - has been debited and out of which the sum of Rs. 49,94,540/- being rates and taxes has been disallowed by the appellant itself and further during the course of assessment proceedings a sum of Rs. 4,30,245/ - has been further disallowed on account of repairs and maintenance for which the appellant has not agitated

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,19,961/- is a part and parcel of the assessee authority besides the fact that the assessee is in receipt of the same. 8) CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that there is no such provision / scope in the bye-laws of the assessee to facilitate the policies of the government; whether they are chartable

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,19,961/- is a part and parcel of the assessee authority besides the fact that the assessee is in receipt of the same. 8) CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that there is no such provision / scope in the bye-laws of the assessee to facilitate the policies of the government; whether they are chartable