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

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

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed on this ground alone

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

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

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

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

CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1(2), 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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1,85,600 towards agricultural income is not warranted since meager amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre was shown to have been received by the assessee as agricultural income out of 13 .2 acres of agricultural land. ignoring the fact that the principle of res-judicata does not apply to income tax, when no evidences were tiled before the Assessing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1,85,600 towards agricultural income is not warranted since meager amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre was shown to have been received by the assessee as agricultural income out of 13 .2 acres of agricultural land. ignoring the fact that the principle of res-judicata does not apply to income tax, when no evidences were tiled before the Assessing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1,85,600 towards agricultural income is not warranted since meager amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre was shown to have been received by the assessee as agricultural income out of 13 .2 acres of agricultural land. ignoring the fact that the principle of res-judicata does not apply to income tax, when no evidences were tiled before the Assessing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1,85,600 towards agricultural income is not warranted since meager amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre was shown to have been received by the assessee as agricultural income out of 13 .2 acres of agricultural land. ignoring the fact that the principle of res-judicata does not apply to income tax, when no evidences were tiled before the Assessing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1,85,600 towards agricultural income is not warranted since meager amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre was shown to have been received by the assessee as agricultural income out of 13 .2 acres of agricultural land. ignoring the fact that the principle of res-judicata does not apply to income tax, when no evidences were tiled before the Assessing

TUMU RAJKUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1,85,600 towards agricultural income is not warranted since meager amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre was shown to have been received by the assessee as agricultural income out of 13 .2 acres of agricultural land. ignoring the fact that the principle of res-judicata does not apply to income tax, when no evidences were tiled before the Assessing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1,85,600 towards agricultural income is not warranted since meager amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre was shown to have been received by the assessee as agricultural income out of 13 .2 acres of agricultural land. ignoring the fact that the principle of res-judicata does not apply to income tax, when no evidences were tiled before the Assessing

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.29/Hyd/2025

173 71,33,360 31 Total 6,831 23,912 1,17,691 2,82,438 44,990 29,351 1,11,225 46 12,86,12,300 17 ITA.No.29/Hyd./2025 December 16 Date of Deposit 2,000 500 100 change(50,20,10,5) Amount 1

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

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