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

68 of the Act is not in accordance with law and untenable.” 19. The details of the share application money received during the relevant assessment year for Rs. 311,88,97,960/- from the five parties mentioned herein above as extracted from the written submission of the Ld. AR is not disputed. From the first remand report

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ADHITHI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

246/-. Since the assessee did not furnish any\nconfirmation, explanation, or supporting documentary evidence\nwith respect to these borrowings, the Ld. AO treated the total\nborrowings aggregating to Rs.4,35,18,530/- as unexplained cash\ncredits within the meaning of section 68

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

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

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal\nunder section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

68 & 69 of the Act were deleted by the Ld.\nCIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Vide its orders in Appeal\nno.10421/2019-20 dt. 21.04.2022 and ITA No. 146/Hyd/2022 dt.\n19.07.2022.\n9.\nThe learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that several Judicial\nrulings and Circulars of the CBDT state that minor filing delays\nshould not deny tax exemptions

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

68 & 69 of the Act were deleted by the Ld.\nCIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Vide its orders in Appeal\nno.10421/2019-20 dt. 21.04.2022 and ITA No. 146/Hyd/2022 dt.\n19.07.2022.\n9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that several Judicial\nrulings and Circulars of the CBDT state that minor filing delays\nshould not deny tax exemptions

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

68 & 69 of the Act were deleted by the Ld.\nCIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Vide its orders in Appeal\nno.10421/2019-20 dt. 21.04.2022 and ITA No. 146/Hyd/2022 dt.\n19.07.2022.\n9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that several Judicial\nrulings and Circulars of the CBDT state that minor filing delays\nshould not deny tax exemptions

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