SHYAMPRASAD REDDY GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

Section 144 r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated 12/12/2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam vs. DCIT 2. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. “The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dated

R.A.K CERAMICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SAMALKOT vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our aforesaid observations

68,545 to the international transactions pertaining\nto purchase of raw materials/finished goods and sale of finished goods and INR 8,13,72,292\ntowards payment of royalty by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprises ('AEs').\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO / Hon'ble\nPanel erred

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

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are as follows: 1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- invoking section 68

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

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are as follows: 1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- invoking section 68

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

250/- that escaped assessment and claim refund of Rs.1,21,540/- for the assessment year 2014-15. On verification, the learned Assessing Page 2 of 33 ITA Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2019 C.O.Nos.12 & 13/Hyd/2019 Officer found that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.2,86,99,000/- towards the share capital during the assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.4

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

250/- that escaped assessment and claim refund of Rs.1,21,540/- for the assessment year 2014-15. On verification, the learned Assessing Page 2 of 33 ITA Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2019 C.O.Nos.12 & 13/Hyd/2019 Officer found that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.2,86,99,000/- towards the share capital during the assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.4

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

68 of the Act. As a result ground no 5 is allowed. 7. In result, the appeal is allowed.” 6. The revenue aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record

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

section 68 with applicable tax rates is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal enumerated in the forgoing paragraph 2 are dismissed. 6. In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. Order passed u/s 250

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

250/- per share on 31/03/2012 through Festino Vincom Pvt Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Subsequently. M/s. Baviscon Ltd. issued bonus shares of 79 for each share held on 20/07/2012 thereby taking the total number of shares to 12,800. Subsequently, ten shares of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. were allotted for each share of M/s. Baviscon

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. TUMU RAJKUMAR , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

TUMU RAJKUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the I.T.Act. 5.1) In course of the appellate proceedings the AR submitted as under: For AY 2013-14, The AO has added Rs.2785000/- towards the cash I deposited in bank, stating that the appellant has not explained it or not I furnished Receipts and Payments A/c. The appellant submit, that during the assessment, as required

INDEED INDIA OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the\n

68,62,731 towards interest on outstanding receivables.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in\nupholding/confirming the action of the Ld. TPO, in rejecting the\ntransfer pricing analysis/study prepared by the Appellant and\nconducting fresh benchmarking, without appreciating that none

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR vs. DURGA GRANITES, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2014-15 Acit, Vs. Durga Granites, Circle-1, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. Pan: Aagfd 8247 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By Sri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 Order

250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that (i) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 3,25,50,207/- U/s. 68 of the Act being the unexplained partners

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

68 of the Act. As a result ground no 5 is\nallowed.\n7. In result, the appeal is allowed.”\n6. The revenue aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the\nmatter in appeal before us.\n7.\nWe have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both\nparties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material\navailable on record