DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

80G and\n80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent\nof Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of\nRs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and\nmade the addition accordingly and assessed the total\nincome of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

5 -: ITA-TP No.198/Hyd/2021 (i) Considering the receivables from Associated Enterprise (AE) as a separate international transaction. (ii) Making an adjustment with respect to interest on the receivables from AE. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

80G and\n80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent\nof Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of\nRs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and\nmade the addition accordingly and assessed the total\nincome of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

80G and\n80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent\nof Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of\nRs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and\nmade the addition accordingly and assessed the total\nincome of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

80G and\n80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent\nof Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of\nRs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and\nmade the addition accordingly and assessed the total\nincome of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS Credit of the transferor company to successor or transferee company even though the income of the transferor company is already considered by the successor company. 18.3 The Ld. AO erred in law and facts by not granting any TCS credit vis-à-vis INR 1,29,734/- as claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

80G of the Act in respect of eligible donations/ payments made by Appellant for the year under consideration based on the assessed Gross Total Income. 6.1. Without prejudice to Grounds 4 & 5 above, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble DRP erred in holding that the donations/payments made by Appellant were

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

II 725 (1994), re. 1 § AStG). A differentiation between debt-claims or debts in national currency and those in foreign currency is normally no use, because, for instance, a US $ loan advanced by a US lender is to him a debt- claim in national currency whereas to a German borrower it is a foreign currency debt (the situation being different

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

TDS to an extent of Rs. 9,70.814/- 15. The Ld. AO erred in computing interest u/s 234B of Rs. 31,16.646/- 16. The Ld. AO erred in computing interest u/s 234C of Rs. 37,20,130/-. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80G of the Act amounting to INR 10,43,860 and further erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, to present its case on merits, before denial of such deduction. 22. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by granting credit of tax deducted at source ('TDS

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80G of the Act amounting to INR 10,43,860 and further erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, to present its case on merits, before denial of such deduction. 22. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by granting credit of tax deducted at source ('TDS