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

68,32,843 from the profits of the business instead of considering the net amount of Rs. 63,66,53,406 credited to profit & loss account for the purpose of computing deduction under section 10A of the Act. Computing incorrect amount of interest under section 234D

PITTI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Pitti Holdings Pvt. Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle Pan: Aagcp3824Q 1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025

section 68 r.w.s.115BBE. Assessed us. 143(3) r.w.s.153C of Income tax Act, 1901 Charge interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C & 234D

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

234D.\n21.\nThe Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to\neach other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds\nof appeal.\n3.\nThe assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal as\nunder :\n1.\nEducation cess and secondary & higher education cess is allowable

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 234D of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 13. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 234D of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 13. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 234D of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 13. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 2348 and 234D of the Act. The aforesaid grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal contained herein as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of the appeals. The Appellant prays that directions

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment

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

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

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

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

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