CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

14A of the Act and interest on borrowed capital allowed under section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards exempt income on capital gains

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

14A of the Act and interest on borrowed capital allowed under section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards exempt income on capital gains

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

14A of the Act and interest on borrowed capital allowed under section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards exempt income on capital gains

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

capital gains), and that no direct\nexpenditure was incurred for earning the exempt dividends. The appellant also\nhighlighted its proactive self-disallowance of Rs.12,17,882/-.\nThe legal analysis, particularly in light of numerous High Court decisions and\nthe Supreme Court's dismissal of SLPs for AY 2017-18, strongly supports the\nprinciple that Section 14A

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

capital and free reserves and the company had not incurred any\nexpenses with respect to the investments made. Further, during the\nFinancial Year 2016-17 the company has not earned any exempt\nincome from the above investments and as such the provisions of\nsection 14A shall not be applicable to the company. Assessing Officer\nheld that, incurring no expenditure

G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LLP, (FORMERLY M/S. G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LTD), SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gains’ only. Grounds on this issue are allowed. Disallowance u/s. 14A: 3. This issue arises in both the assessment years i.e., AY. 2009-10 as well as in AY. 2011-12. In AY. 2009-10, AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,87,52,042/- invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii) as percentage of average value of investments. Ld.CIT

G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LLP, (FORMERLY M/S. G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LTD), SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gains’ only. Grounds on this issue are allowed. Disallowance u/s. 14A: 3. This issue arises in both the assessment years i.e., AY. 2009-10 as well as in AY. 2011-12. In AY. 2009-10, AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,87,52,042/- invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii) as percentage of average value of investments. Ld.CIT

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for\nboth the

capital gain from sale of\ninvestments and the same is subjected to tax. However, the\nlearned PCIT without verifying the relevant facts, simply\ninvoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the\nissue of disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt\nincome under section 14A

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

capital gains. 7.2 Therefore, income has to be determined strictly as per the provisions of I.T. Act and not as per Companies Act/Book profit. Only in specific situation book profit is considered for only determining the taxable income u/s 115JB. In no other 10 I.T.A. Nos. 438 to 440/Hyd/2016 Ocean Sparkle Ltd., Hyd. situation, the book profit is considered

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

capital gains. 7.2 Therefore, income has to be determined strictly as per the provisions of I.T. Act and not as per Companies Act/Book profit. Only in specific situation book profit is considered for only determining the taxable income u/s 115JB. In no other 10 I.T.A. Nos. 438 to 440/Hyd/2016 Ocean Sparkle Ltd., Hyd. situation, the book profit is considered

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

capital gains. 7.2 Therefore, income has to be determined strictly as per the provisions of I.T. Act and not as per Companies Act/Book profit. Only in specific situation book profit is considered for only determining the taxable income u/s 115JB. In no other 10 I.T.A. Nos. 438 to 440/Hyd/2016 Ocean Sparkle Ltd., Hyd. situation, the book profit is considered

AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.791/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Amara Raja Energy & Mobility Limited, The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. Tirupati – 517 520. Tirupati Pan Aabca9264E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca E Phalguna Kumar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

capital gain from sale of immovable property which in fact is sale of mutual funds. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has referred to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.142(1) of the Act dated 12.10.2022 and particularly, the query no.3 of the said show cause notice which reads as under: “3. From the perusal

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

capital gain from sale of investments and the same is subjected to tax. However, the 9 ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 learned PCIT without verifying the relevant facts, simply invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the issue of disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income under section 14A

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

Section 14A of the Act. " 11.8 In the case of Holcin India (P) Ltd. (supra) the facts were that the respondent- assessee was a subsidiary of Holderind Investments Ltd., Mauritius, which was formed as a holding company for 'making downstream investments in cement manufacturing ventures in India. In the return of income filed for the Assessment Year

BALA REDDY GOPU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 14A cannot be invoked without proper satisfaction recorded by the AO. For this proposition, he relied on the decision in the case of Reliance Capital. He also submitted that CIT(A) has enhanced the addition to the extent of Rs. 35,13,391/- by observing that the expenditure disallowable u/s 14A of the Act is more than the expenditure

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

gains from business and profession'. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade', certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

SHRI RAMPRIYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

section 14A have no application and, therefore ought to have allowed the entire claim of interest payment on borrowed funds amounting to Rs.35,60,747/- or alternatively the entire amount ought to have considered the cost of shares and deduction shall be provided from the sale consideration of shares while arriving Short Term Capital Loss. 4. The learned Commissioner

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

gains from business and profession’. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’, certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from