GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

221 ITR 239 (All). 22. The Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view." 27. Section 68

MURAD KHETANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act, submitted that, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 10,60,000/- towards Suspense (Vistas account difference), even though the above account was carried forward from earlier financial years for which the assessee has furnished relevant details, including copies of financial statements and schedule of loan creditors as on 31.03.2015. The learned counsel

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 68 of the Act had been met by the assessee. 30. Further, we are of the view that the decisions cited by the Ld. CIT (A) and those cited by the ld. AR, the facts are not identical with the facts of the assessee as discussed herein below. (i) CIT vs. NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd reported

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 68 of the Act had been met by the assessee. 30. Further, we are of the view that the decisions cited by the Ld. CIT (A) and those cited by the ld. AR, the facts are not identical with the facts of the assessee as discussed herein below. (i) CIT vs. NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd reported

DHARTI DREDGING & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) TDS, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,000/- on account of assessee’s default in not deducting the ITA 509/Hyd/2019 Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd. Hyd corresponding TDS amount. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under. “5.0. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the order of the AO and the written submissions of the A.R. In this case, penalty

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68 of the Act for Rs. 1,99,60,299/- and also deleted the addition made by the A.O. towards the cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act for Rs. 7,30,75,930/-. The learned CIT(A) has also partly allowed relief to the assessee in respect of addition made towards trade discount

ALKOR PETROO LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Alkor Petroo Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aadca9825D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. Chandrasekhar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Extraction Of Crude Oil. It Is Also Subsidiary Company Of M/S. Ivrcl Ltd (Under Liquidation As Going Concern As Per The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (Cirp). It Filed Its Return Of Income On 14.8.2018 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.14,01,951/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly Statutory Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee Through Itba On Page 1 Of 6

221,02,24,108/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act. 3.1 Similarly, from the Profit & Loss account and return of income for the impugned A.Y, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown interest income of Rs.6,79,614/- and claimed expenses of professional/consultancy fees/fee for technical services of Rs.16,05,000/-, bank

CHANDRALOK HOTELS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc 9912 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

68,83,850/-, which is the SRO value. In support of his arguments, he relied on the following judgments: “1. Appadurai Vijayaraghavan Vs. JCIT, 49 Taxmann 513 (Mad. HC) 2. S. Muthuraja Vs. CIT, 37 taxmann 352 (HC Mad) 3. Lalitha Karan Vs. ITAT, ITA No. 1130/Hyd/2015 4. Ajay Kochar Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1066/Hyd/2017 5. Smt. Chalasani Nagar Ratna

PRASANTH NANDANURU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

221/- from Wells India in respect of which the tax at source was deducted to the tune of Rs. 12,44,487/- under section 192(1) of the Act. On 18/10/2018 the employment of the assessee was terminated by Wells India and the terminal benefits were paid to him. Assessee claimed that he was part

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,75,000/- towards ROC fee, the CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4.2 As regards deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the AO denied the deduction u/s 80IA from the gross total income, while the CIT(A) allowed the same following the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2146/Hyd/2017

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,75,000/- towards ROC fee, the CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4.2 As regards deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the AO denied the deduction u/s 80IA from the gross total income, while the CIT(A) allowed the same following the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2146/Hyd/2017

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“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 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68,790/- and Rs.75,34,379/- respectively, and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.552,16,73,095/-. Page 3 of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly

HARSHINI EPC PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 10.09.2014 and duly served on the assessee. In response to notices issued, assessee company furnished the information / explanation as called for. After verification of the information / explanation filed, Assessing Officer had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2016 interalia making

MR. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 276CC of the Act and calling for a return of income. In response to the same, assessee filed his return of income on 11-08-2010 by admitting total income of Rs. 1,80,585/-. 3. During the assessment proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act, Assessing Officer observed that the assessee and his family members have purchased

SRI MANJUNATH TRADERS,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Manjunatha Traders, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nizamabad. Ward-2, Pan: Abnfs 4842 C Nizamabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Sri Rajeev Benjwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2019 Order Per V. Durga Rao, J.M.:

section 43B find no application to the case, as there is no confirmed demand from the VAT authorities and VAT and CST returns filed by the appellant are found to be genuine by the said authorities. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee has incurred the expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 14A inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2022 is clarification in nature. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the infrastructure sector, primarily in the construction of industrial and commercial building, flyovers, environment projects

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

68 of the I.T.Act. The Hon’ble High Court is of the view that no question of law arises when the Tribunal found that based on the evidences the claim that certain parties advanced amounts is found to be non genuine. The burden of proof as required u/s 68 is totally different than the claim of expenditure. In the case

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

68 of the I.T.Act. The Hon’ble High Court is of the view that no question of law arises when the Tribunal found that based on the evidences the claim that certain parties advanced amounts is found to be non genuine. The burden of proof as required u/s 68 is totally different than the claim of expenditure. In the case