ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIVA PRASAD NIDAMARTHY, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Joint Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Income Tax (Osd), Hyderabad Circle-5(1) / [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent सी.ओ./ C.O. Nos. 14 & 15/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021) निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Vs [Erstwhile Circle-16(1)] [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Hyderabad क्रॉस ऑब्जेक्टर / Cross-Objector प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.N. Murthy, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 26/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Challenging The Order(S) Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Cit(A)”) In The Case Of Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy (“The Assessee”) For

68 of the Act in respect of the refundable fidelity guarantee amount, Rs. 28.50 lakhs on account of income from agricultural operations and Rs. 5 lakhs under section 69A of the act on account of unexplained cash deposits. 28. Insofar as the refundable fidelity guarantee amount is concerned, the facts are identical to those involved in the assessment year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. R.R.MOVIE MAKERS, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,183/-. There is not even an indication in the Revenue’s pleadings rebutting this clinching aspect of double disallowance/addition of the very sum. We thus see no reason to restore the instant issue back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication on this count alone. This former ground is rejected. 4. Coming to Revenue’s latter issue

SUDHAKAR AKUTOTA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1068/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Sudhakar Akutota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Abapa0044M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. V. Raghuram, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sudhakar Akutota (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 296 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Authorised

68,373/- in the bank accounts of the assessee, which remained unexplained. The Ld. AO accordingly treated the said amount as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO also noted that the assessee was in receipt of rental income of Rs.2,20,800/- and contract receipts of Rs.5,010/- during the ITA No.1068/Hyd/2025

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

68,67,13,660/-, after claiming a deduction under Section 80IA (4) of the Act for an amount of Rs.44,91,03,357/-, for the first time, in respect of profits and gains derived from the development of infrastructure projects. The case was taken up for scrutiny, and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called upon

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,016/-. ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page 7 5. The assessee raised as many as 11 grounds in this appeal. During the appellate proceedings the Ld. AR withdraw Ground No.9, hence the same is not required to be separately adjudicated. Further Ground No.8 of the assessee relates to initiation of penalty proceedings under section

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

183 (Madras), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court had observed that the assessee company before them was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA in respect of the power income generated by its own windmill that was captive consumed by the assessee. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations and the settled position of law, are unable

UNION BANK OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

68,70,494/- as provision made for bad and doubtful debts made by the Appellant in its books against provision of Rs.785,63,70,494/- made in the books. 4. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in considering Rs.21,21,73,183/- as income, being the amount received under Agriculture

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

68,70,494/- as provision made for bad and doubtful debts made by the Appellant in its books against provision of Rs.785,63,70,494/- made in the books. 4. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in considering Rs.21,21,73,183/- as income, being the amount received under Agriculture

ALPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

68,72,300/-, and further after making an addition towards TP adjustment Rs. 11.26 crores (supra), vide his draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act, dated 29/09/2021 proposed to assess its income at Rs. 41.65 crores (approx.) 6 Alpla India Private Limited vs. DCIT ITA 457/Hyd/2022 7. The assessee company filed its objections before the Dispute

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 14. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. erred in not considering the income declared u/s 183 of the Finance Act, 2016, in respect of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. 15. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has erred by not allowing

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 14. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. erred in not considering the income declared u/s 183 of the Finance Act, 2016, in respect of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. 15. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has erred by not allowing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 14. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. erred in not considering the income declared u/s 183 of the Finance Act, 2016, in respect of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. 15. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has erred by not allowing

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 14. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. erred in not considering the income declared u/s 183 of the Finance Act, 2016, in respect of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. 15. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has erred by not allowing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 14. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. erred in not considering the income declared u/s 183 of the Finance Act, 2016, in respect of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. 15. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has erred by not allowing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 14. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. erred in not considering the income declared u/s 183 of the Finance Act, 2016, in respect of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. 15. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has erred by not allowing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 14. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. erred in not considering the income declared u/s 183 of the Finance Act, 2016, in respect of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. 15. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has erred by not allowing