LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

14A is called for when the assessee has not earned any dividend income during the year under consideration. Accordingly, in view of the facts as discussed above, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) qua on this issue. The same is upheld. 10. With regard to grounds of appeal No.5

VICTORY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, MEDCHAL,R.R.DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Victory Electricals Ltd., V Dcit,Circle-17(2) Plot No.8, Survey No.855, S. Signature Towers Ida, Medchal, Kondapur Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad Hyderabad-501 401

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, Our attention was drawn to reply given by the assessee, more particularly at page No.53 & 54 to the following effect “In continuation of the statement of facts, the appellant may be permitted to submit the following explanation: There are three effective grounds in all. The first ground is with regard to disallowance

ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 14A are to be applied to interest to be computed on a sum of Rs. 6,71,70,797. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that the entire investments were made out of the funds available out of share capital and reserves and therefore ought to have clearly held that no portion of working capital or borrowed

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 14A are to be applied to interest to be computed on a sum of Rs. 6,71,70,797. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that the entire investments were made out of the funds available out of share capital and reserves and therefore ought to have clearly held that no portion of working capital or borrowed

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

14A of the Act is warranted. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs.2,00,990/- made by the Ld. AO is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the ground no. 7 of the assessee is allowed. 16. Ground No. 8 raised by the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs.18,72,836/- made by the Ld. AO on account of CSR expenditure

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

2 to Section 80IA introduced by the Finance Act 2017, which was introduced and unambiguously, explained that only those enterprises that have entered into development agreements with the Central / State / local authorities and invested their funds to develop such facilities will only be eligible for the benefit of deduction. The ld.DR referring to the provisions of Section 80IA

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:

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS of not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance tax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present case, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption that that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate the capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

NEOVANTAGE INNOVATION PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2 is kept open, with the above direction. 9. The Ld. AR fairly submitted that the issue of addition made on account of interest paid on NCDs under ground no. 6 and issue related to ground no.8 of the assessee are covered by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case

NEOVANTAGE BIO-TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2 is kept open, with the above direction. 9. The Ld. AR fairly submitted that the issue of addition made on account of interest paid on NCDs under ground no. 6 and issue related to ground no.8 of the assessee are covered by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.54,22,428/- out of Rs.67,85,773/- towards the finance cost debited to the development expenditure without properly considering the fact that the expenditure was incurred in connection with and in relation to the business activity carried on by the appellant. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the trade payables

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.54,22,428/- out of Rs.67,85,773/- towards the finance cost debited to the development expenditure without properly considering the fact that the expenditure was incurred in connection with and in relation to the business activity carried on by the appellant. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the trade payables

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.54,22,428/- out of Rs.67,85,773/- towards the finance cost debited to the development expenditure without properly considering the fact that the expenditure was incurred in connection with and in relation to the business activity carried on by the appellant. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the trade payables

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.54,22,428/- out of Rs.67,85,773/- towards the finance cost debited to the development expenditure without properly considering the fact that the expenditure was incurred in connection with and in relation to the business activity carried on by the appellant. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the trade payables

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.54,22,428/- out of Rs.67,85,773/- towards the finance cost debited to the development expenditure without properly considering the fact that the expenditure was incurred in connection with and in relation to the business activity carried on by the appellant. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the trade payables

SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

TDS on payments made to sub-contractors in terms of Section 194C of the Act. Filing of return of income by the sub-contractors is not within the domain of the assessee and beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, non-furnishing of return of income by the sub-contractors is not a ground for disbelieving or doubting the genuineness

AGARWAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS returns, as business expenditure u/s 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act. Enhancement of Income Ordered by CIT(A)-Rs. 6,31,27,644 and Rs.7,83,011/- 7. The Ld. Commissioner erred in directing that the interest on fixed deposit of Rs. 6,31,27,044/- and Rs. 7,83,011/- to be taxed as to be taxed

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 14A are not applicable. 6.10. Without prejudice to the above, erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.10,68,463/ - instead of restricting the disallowance to the extent of income claimed/ earned as exempt during the year. Additional Grounds of Appeal Without prejudice to the grounds no. 1 to 8 filed on 30.01.2018, herewith we submit: Each of the grounds

VIJAI ELECTRICALS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

14A of the Act. 2.1 In ITA No. 1534/Hyd/2017, the assessee has raised two substantive grounds of appeal, one is pertaining to the addition towards ESI and PF, which is similar to ground No. 2 in ITA No. 1533/Hyd/2017 and another one is pertaining to TDS of Rs. 78,26,28,873/-, which is not pressed

VIJAI ELECTRICALS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

14A of the Act. 2.1 In ITA No. 1534/Hyd/2017, the assessee has raised two substantive grounds of appeal, one is pertaining to the addition towards ESI and PF, which is similar to ground No. 2 in ITA No. 1533/Hyd/2017 and another one is pertaining to TDS of Rs. 78,26,28,873/-, which is not pressed