SPECTRA EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D. The same was amended by the 2nd Amendment Act; w.e.f. 01.04.2017, enhancing the rate to 60%. Hence there was no new liability created and the rate of tax merely stood enhanced which is applicable to the assessments carried on in that year. The enhanced rate applies from the commencement of the assessment year

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,013/- and 45,80,892/-assessment year wise, respectively, involving proceedings u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Page 1 of 8 ITA Nos 63 to 66 of 2018 AMD R&D Centre India P Ltd Bangalore 2. It emerges at the outset that we hardly need

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,013/- and 45,80,892/-assessment year wise, respectively, involving proceedings u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Page 1 of 8 ITA Nos 63 to 66 of 2018 AMD R&D Centre India P Ltd Bangalore 2. It emerges at the outset that we hardly need

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,013/- and 45,80,892/-assessment year wise, respectively, involving proceedings u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Page 1 of 8 ITA Nos 63 to 66 of 2018 AMD R&D Centre India P Ltd Bangalore 2. It emerges at the outset that we hardly need

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,013/- and 45,80,892/-assessment year wise, respectively, involving proceedings u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Page 1 of 8 ITA Nos 63 to 66 of 2018 AMD R&D Centre India P Ltd Bangalore 2. It emerges at the outset that we hardly need

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

68 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order is vitiated by a failure to consider the principles of natural justice, as the explanations and justifications submitted by the appellant were summarily disregarded without assigning any cogent reasons, making the penalty order arbitrary

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

68 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order is vitiated by a failure to consider the principles of natural justice, as the explanations and justifications submitted by the appellant were summarily disregarded without assigning any cogent reasons, making the penalty order arbitrary

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

68 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order is vitiated by a failure to consider the principles of natural justice, as the explanations and justifications submitted by the appellant were summarily disregarded without assigning any cogent reasons, making the penalty order arbitrary

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

68 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order is vitiated by a failure to consider the principles of natural justice, as the explanations and justifications submitted by the appellant were summarily disregarded without assigning any cogent reasons, making the penalty order arbitrary

SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS,,KHAMMAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

246 ITR 283), the amount of Rs.1,70,23,768/- is brought to tax as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. Addition: Rs.1,70,23,768/-.” 8. Thus, it is clear that it is a case of increase in the sundry creditors during the year consideration to the tune of Rs.1,70,23,768/-. The Assessing Officer proceeded

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

68 of the Act: Rs.16,19,208/-; (v) disallowance under section 43B of the Act: Rs.6,08,594/-; (vi) addition of undisclosed interest income: Rs.2,46,769/- ; and (vii) addition of undisclosed sales: Rs.3,34,246

HARIYANA STEEL CENTRE (KDM) PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 is unwarranted. 3. The learned first Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the learned Assessing Officer did not accepted the claim of the appellant for Cross examinations. 2. The ld. AR has submitted that the AO had made the addition of Rs. 2.66 crores in the AY 2011-12 on account of the bogus entries taken

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,190/- in its return, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, resulting in a disallowance of ₹5,13,01,761/- towards gratuity expenses under section 43B of the Act. This adjustment increased the assessee’s income to ₹ 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 un-explained cash credits addition of Rs.3,75,75,971/- thereby treating commission income as bogus; respectively. There is further no dispute that the assessee has raised identical substantive grounds in the remaining six appeals as well since the only difference therein is qua quantum of the impugned additions and disallowances; as the case may be. We advert