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

1) of the Act in Commissioner of Income Tax v Metachem Industries10, and it was held that according to Section 68 the burden was on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry in the books of account of the previous year and in a case where satisfactory explanation had been given by establishing that the amount had been

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

1) of the Act in Commissioner of Income Tax v Metachem Industries10, and it was held that according to Section 68 the burden was on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry in the books of account of the previous year and in a case where satisfactory explanation had been given by establishing that the amount had been

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

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

68 of the Act for Rs.\n1,99,60,299/- and also deleted the addition made by the A.O.\ntowards the cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act for\nRs. 7,30,75,930/-. The learned CIT(A) has also partly allowed\nrelief to the assessee in respect of addition made towards trade\ndiscount

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,472) Rs.12,78,47,171/- was disallowed and brought to tax. Page 2 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 4. Further, on verification of the P&L A/c, the AO noted that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.1,11,47,486/- towards provision for major maintenance. On further

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,472) Rs.12,78,47,171/- was disallowed and brought to tax. Page 2 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 4. Further, on verification of the P&L A/c, the AO noted that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.1,11,47,486/- towards provision for major maintenance. On further

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68,472) Rs.12,78,47,171/- was disallowed and brought to tax. Page 2 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 4. Further, on verification of the P&L A/c, the AO noted that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.1,11,47,486/- towards provision for major maintenance. On further

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

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)

1), Hyderabad. The claim of the assessee that most of the loans were only brought forward balances from earlier years were verified from the details of loan creditors as on 31.03.2014 and from the above, it is noticed that, as on 01.04.2015, loans from three parties were not reflected in the list of creditors. Further, it is pertinent to note

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

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

221 Taxmann.com 143), Dr. D.S.S. Rao vs. ITO reported in 356 ITR 117, Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT reported in 330 ITR 1: In these cases none of the creditors were traceable and in some instances cash deposits were found in their accounts. (vi) Dhingra Global Credence Pvt Ltd vs. ITO reported in 1 ITR(T) 529:- In this case

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

221 Taxmann.com 143), Dr. D.S.S. Rao vs. ITO reported in 356 ITR 117, Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT reported in 330 ITR 1: In these cases none of the creditors were traceable and in some instances cash deposits were found in their accounts. (vi) Dhingra Global Credence Pvt Ltd vs. ITO reported in 1 ITR(T) 529:- In this case

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed ex parte. We have heard Shri R.Muzumdar, learned D.R. and perused case file. 2. Both the learned lower authorities have levied sec. 221 penalty of Rs.23,68,000/- on account of assessee’s default in not deducting

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

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

221 M to 100 M.\n• Construction of Spillway dam from 100 M to 260 M with a bridge\nat T.B.L.\n• Construction of right side N.O.F. Dam from 260 M to 1500 M.\n• Formation of Earth Dam from Ch.1500 to Ch 3405m.\n(approximate).\n• Construction of Infall regulator.\n• Construction of off take regulator.\n• Excavation

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

221 M to 100 M.\n•\nConstruction of Spillway dam from 100 M to 260 M with a bridge\nat T.B.L.\n•\nConstruction of right side N.O.F. Dam from 260 M to 1500 M.\n•\nFormation of Earth Dam from Ch.1500 to Ch 3405m.\n(approximate).\n•\nConstruction of Infall regulator.\n•\nConstruction of off take regulator.\n•\nExcavation

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

221 M to 100 M.\n•\nConstruction of Spillway dam from 100 M to 260 M with a bridge\nat T.B.L.\n•\nConstruction of right side N.O.F. Dam from 260 M to 1500 М.\n•\nFormation of Earth Dam from Ch.1500 to Ch 3405m.\n(approximate).\n•\nConstruction of Infall regulator.\n•\nConstruction of off take regulator.\n•\nExcavation