MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

ab initio and is liable to be quashed and thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A of the Act dt. 31.03.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12. Thus, ground no.5 is allowed. 14. As we have allowed Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1050/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2011-12, no addition

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

ab initio and is liable to be quashed and thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A of the Act dt. 31.03.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12. Thus, ground no.5 is allowed. 14. As we have allowed Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1050/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2011-12, no addition

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

35,000 and confirming the addition of Rs.20,74,01,000 although the entire cash deposits are of the same genre of business. 5. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the AOs findings that the provisions of section 68 are attracted in respect of cash deposits made in the appellant’s bank account. 6. The ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

35,000 and confirming the addition of Rs.20,74,01,000 although the entire cash deposits are of the same genre of business. 5. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the AOs findings that the provisions of section 68 are attracted in respect of cash deposits made in the appellant’s bank account. 6. The ld.CIT

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

35,000 and confirming the addition of Rs.20,74,01,000 although the entire cash deposits are of the same genre of business. 5. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the AOs findings that the provisions of section 68 are attracted in respect of cash deposits made in the appellant’s bank account. 6. The ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

35,000 and confirming the addition of Rs.20,74,01,000 although the entire cash deposits are of the same genre of business. 5. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the AOs findings that the provisions of section 68 are attracted in respect of cash deposits made in the appellant’s bank account. 6. The ld.CIT

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs. 1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,941/- in respect of 519 invoices as mentioned hereinabove and there is no explanation given by the assessee for such a delay in receiving the amount. The very purpose of benchmarking the transaction is to ascertain whether assessee, who is similarly situated, would render the same kind of services at the same or similar price to a third party

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,941/- in respect of 519 invoices as mentioned hereinabove and there is no explanation given by the assessee for such a delay in receiving the amount. The very purpose of benchmarking the transaction is to ascertain whether assessee, who is similarly situated, would render the same kind of services at the same or similar price to a third party

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1330/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Krishna Constructions The Income Tax Officer, Nirmal. Telangana. Ward-1, Vs. Pin – 504 106. Nirmal – 504 106. Pan Aapfk1280K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri D Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar,Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

35 ITA.No.1330/Hyd./2025 9.1. On going through the above, we take a note of the fact that the case was identified for limited scrutiny (CASS) for the examination of the following two issues only: i. Whether refund claim is justified ? ii. Whether investment and income relating to foreign bank account are duly disclosed? 9.2. However, on going through

VISWANADH KANDULA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

ab initio. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the ground that the notice issued u/s 148 and consequent Assessment is in valid in law as the Assessing Officer has not complied the provisions of Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances

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

Bench: Us:

ab initio, bad in law, and liable to be quashed. Filed on 22/04/2025 : 1 Without prejudice, the lower authorities erred in proposing a TP adjustment of INR 19,43,26,338, without appreciating that the TP adjustment with respect to the deduction claimed under section 801B(11A) of the Act to the extent of INR 2

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. SURESH PRODUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

2) It is important to note that the 35 apartment units with a cumulative area of 30,130 S.ft are also attached by the Income Tax department vide order u/s 281B dated 13.04.2015 and when the property itself is attached by the Income tax department and which is an undisputed fact, any such transaction would become ab initio void

CHANDRALOK HOTELS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc 9912 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

ab initio for the AO, having referred to the DVO as per the provisions of section 50OC (2) of the Act, has failed to follow the procedure laid down in sub section (2) & (3) of section 5OC of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the .assessment where an sale consideration

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

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

ab-initio, bad in law and is liable to be quashed. Document Identification Number 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in issuing the directions quoting the Document Identification Number manually on the body of the said directions dated 19.09.2024 in contravention of CBDT Circular

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abfpa5945G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2025

ab-initio. Also, none of the replies given by the assessee has been considered by the assessing officer as can be clearly derived by the e-proceeding website.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 01- 08-2017, declaring a total income

SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

35,98,259/. This account copy was filed by the assessee on 04.03.2015. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee also filed confirmation from M/s. Sujana Universal Industries Limited in the form of ledger account of the assessee in the books of M/s. Sujana Univèrsal Industries Limited. However, the said ledger account does not contain the above entries. There

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

35,98,259/. This account copy was filed by the assessee on 04.03.2015. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee also filed confirmation from M/s. Sujana Universal Industries Limited in the form of ledger account of the assessee in the books of M/s. Sujana Univèrsal Industries Limited. However, the said ledger account does not contain the above entries. There

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

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