SRI KRISHNA JEWELLERY MART,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Appeal are allowed in above terms

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

condoning the delay. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact there is no exempt income earned by your appellant and hence, there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4.Your appellant submits that since there is no exempt income earned by your appellant, no disallowance u/s.14A is warranted. 5.Your appellant submits that in view

SRI KRISHNA JEWELLERY MART ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Appeal are allowed in above terms

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

condoning the delay. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact there is no exempt income earned by your appellant and hence, there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4.Your appellant submits that since there is no exempt income earned by your appellant, no disallowance u/s.14A is warranted. 5.Your appellant submits that in view

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. SUJANA UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

delay is condoned therefore. 3. The Revenue has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that provisions of section 14A are not attracted when assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. 2.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. IND BARATH POWER GENCOM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godaraappellant Respondent

delay stands condoned therefore. :- 2 -: ITA Nos.921, 922 & 923/Hyd/2019 3. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance in first and foremost AY.2014-15; appeal in ITA No.921/Hyd/2019 and former identical grievance canvassed in the latter twin assessment years’ appeals herein challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action deleting Section 36(1)(iii) involving varying sums. We note that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. IND BARATH POWER INFRA LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godaraappellant Respondent

delay stands condoned therefore. :- 2 -: ITA Nos.921, 922 & 923/Hyd/2019 3. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance in first and foremost AY.2014-15; appeal in ITA No.921/Hyd/2019 and former identical grievance canvassed in the latter twin assessment years’ appeals herein challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action deleting Section 36(1)(iii) involving varying sums. We note that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. IND BARATH POWER GENCOM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godaraappellant Respondent

delay stands condoned therefore. :- 2 -: ITA Nos.921, 922 & 923/Hyd/2019 3. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance in first and foremost AY.2014-15; appeal in ITA No.921/Hyd/2019 and former identical grievance canvassed in the latter twin assessment years’ appeals herein challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action deleting Section 36(1)(iii) involving varying sums. We note that

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Spandana spoorty Financial Services Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of 'Micro-finance'. The assessee company filed its return

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Spandana spoorty Financial Services Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of 'Micro-finance'. The assessee company filed its return

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GMR AEROSPACE ENGINEERING CO.LTD,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAS GMR AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LIMITED ), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

delay stands condoned therefore. :- 2 -: 3. The Revenue has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is correct in law in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance u/s.14A on the ground that no exempt income was received during the previous year which

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TELANGANA STATE POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Telangana State Power Income-Tax, Generation Corporation Circle – 2(2), Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aafct 0257Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Danda Srinivas Assessee By: Shri Chandramouleswara Rao Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2021

section 14A. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. We notice at the outset that revenue’s instant appeal suffers from 90 days delay in filing. To this effect, the ld. DR filed an affidavit wherein it was affirmed that due to COVIP pandemic and consequent lockdown declared by the Govt. of India

P. RAVINDER REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P. RANGAREDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P. RANGAREDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P. DHARMA REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P. SRINIVASA REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P.SUDHAKAR REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P.NARASIMHA REDDY (HUF) LATE, L/R. P.SUDHAKAR REDDY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P.NARASIMHA REDDY (HUF) LATE, L/R. P.SUDHAKAR REDDY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein