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

section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the Ld. AR on few occasions upheld the order of the Ld. AO as he was also of the view that the identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the transaction have not been established. While arriving at such decision, he relied on the second remand report obtained from

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. PONNAMBALAM KRISHNAN, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.655/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ponnambalam Krishnan, Tax, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Vs. Ekjambarakuppam, Chittoor, A.P. Pan : Bedpk5641B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 (Assessment Year:2017-18) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 10/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की रीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

293/-. (5) The assessee failed to furnish the documentary evidences towards agricultural income of Rs.15,28,700/-.The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have called for a remand report on the submission.” 3. There is a delay of 5 days in filing of the present appeal by the revenue for which no formal application has been filed by the revenue

AJAZ FAROOQI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

sections of 68 and 69A of the Act for the single addition in para 7.0 of the assessment order. Further, in the case of Kermix Micro Systems (India) Limited (Supra), there was no retraction from the admission made, where as in the appellant's case, there is a retraction-affidavit filed. Thus the revenue's reliance on the above

JASPER AUTO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 0196P (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,33,000/-_ made towards Long Term Capital Gains. 2 Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that in the appellant's case, there was a slump sale within the meaning of section 2(42C) of the Act attracting the provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,169/- towards dies and moulds only to replace them in the place of worn out dies and moulds. The assessee in the memorandum of income added this amount to the total income and claimed the cost of dies and moulds of Rs.22,66,52,504/- under Section 31 of the Act. The assessee stated that within a period

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,169/- towards dies and moulds only to replace them in the place of worn out dies and moulds. The assessee in the memorandum of income added this amount to the total income and claimed the cost of dies and moulds of Rs.22,66,52,504/- under Section 31 of the Act. The assessee stated that within a period

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD., SECUNDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,169/- towards dies and moulds only to replace them in the place of worn out dies and moulds. The assessee in the memorandum of income added this amount to the total income and claimed the cost of dies and moulds of Rs.22,66,52,504/- under Section 31 of the Act. The assessee stated that within a period

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,169/- towards dies and moulds only to replace them in the place of worn out dies and moulds. The assessee in the memorandum of income added this amount to the total income and claimed the cost of dies and moulds of Rs.22,66,52,504/- under Section 31 of the Act. The assessee stated that within a period

SRINIVASA RAO PALABHATLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.293/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Palabhatla, Hyderabad Ward – 7 (1) Pan:Aiupp8507H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla, (“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 04.05.2023 For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 571 Days In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition & Affidavit Along With Copies Of Page 1 Of 6

293 of 2025 Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla 2) The learned CIT (A) is not justified in deciding the appeal without providing proper opportunity. 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,68,000/- made by the Assessing Officer without considering the facts that the deposits do not relate to the assessee but they relate

SYED AHMED ZEESHANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

68,00,000/- to Sri Syed Naveeduddin Quadri, Director of M/s Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The details of transactions show that Syed Naveeduddin Quadri has paid Rs.3,75,00,000/- in advance and promised to pay the balance of Rs.5,25,00,000/- on or before 01.08.2016. Considering the above document, statement of Sri Naveduddin Quadri was taken on oath

ASRA AHMED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

68,00,000/- to Sri Syed Naveeduddin Quadri, Director of M/s Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The details of transactions show that Syed Naveeduddin Quadri has paid Rs.3,75,00,000/- in advance and promised to pay the balance of Rs.5,25,00,000/- on or before 01.08.2016. Considering the above document, statement of Sri Naveduddin Quadri was taken on oath

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 80IB(11A) of the Act, were duly filed online by Mr. PSRVV Surya Rao, Chartered Accountant 79 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. [Membership No. 202367], Partner at A. Ramachandra Rao & Co. [FRN no. 002857S]; (iii). that the signed copies of all the “Form 10CCBs” (alongwith the screenshots of the acknowledgments downloaded from the Income

SREE KRISHNA AUTOMOTIVES HYDERABAD PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Sree Krishna Automotives Vs. Dy. Cit, Hyderabad (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aakcs5353H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.10.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.30,53,317/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36 Of The I.T. Act On A/C Of Delayed Payment Of Pf & Esi.

293/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) by CPC Bengaluru and the CPC Bengaluru made the following additions: Disallowance of employees contribution Rs.30,53,317 to PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) Disallowance of payment of gratuity disallowed u/s 43B Rs. 68,790 Disallowed an amount towards profit on Rs.59,343 sale assets

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

293 received 55,36,26,174 6. Though, the assessee had filed T.P. Study Report by benchmarking the international transactions using Transactional Net Margin Method (hereinafter referred as “TNMM”) as most appropriate method and for that purpose has selected it as comparable. The assessee has worked out the PLI as 9.06% as against own margin of 11.89%. Therefore, the assessee

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

293 received 55,36,26,174 6. Though, the assessee had filed T.P. Study Report by benchmarking the international transactions using Transactional Net Margin Method (hereinafter referred as “TNMM”) as most appropriate method and for that purpose has selected it as comparable. The assessee has worked out the PLI as 9.06% as against own margin of 11.89%. Therefore, the assessee