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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Deemed. Dividend.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.\n3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of bulk drugs

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. MSN PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Deemed. Dividend.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding\nde debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact\nloan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is\nengaged in the business of manufacturing of bulk

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Deemed. Dividend.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding\ndebit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact\nloan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is\nengaged in the business of manufacturing of bulk drugs

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Deemed. Dividend.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding\ndebit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact\nloan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is\nengaged in the business of manufacturing of bulk drugs

MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

deemed\ndividend in the hands of the appellant.\n4. 1. Aggrieved by the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in\nappeal before the Tribunal.\n5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from\nGround Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal and ground nos.2 and 3\nof the Revenue's appeal is the disallowance

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MSN LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

Deemed. Dividend.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding\nde'bit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact\nloan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is\nengaged in the business of manufacturing

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

Deemed. Dividend. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs

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

Deemed. Dividend. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the outstanding debit balance of M/s. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is in fact loan/advance which attracts the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of drugs

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

dividends from these investments. Accordingly, there is no question of disallowance of expenses against exempt income. As a result, ground no 2 is allowed. 4. Ground No.3 is raised against disallowance of 80G deduction amounting to Rs.1,88,97,644 claimed against CSR expenditure. The company extended following donations out of the CSR expenses; Details of Donations made during

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed aggregating short computation of tax to the tune of Rs.23,43,411/- (Rs.22,12,063/- u/s 234A + Rs.1,31,348/- U/s. 43B). C) Observations : v) It is observed that from the tax audit report, the assessee has granted loan to 21 parties and the max. amount involved during the year and the balance such loans aggregates to Rs.73

CAPITAL FORTUNES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), IT TOWERS

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.724/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Capital Fortunes Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aabcc5489P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C S Subrahmanyam, C.A. & Shri V Siva Kumar,Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 19/09/2025

dividend income, and disallowance of employees’ contribution. These go to the merits of computation of income and require verification of facts. In our considered view, these claims of the assessee deserve to be adjudicated on merits. The denial of relief solely on the ground of technical merger is not justified. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem

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

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

dividend income and capital gain is taxable for\nthe year under consideration, still the provisions of section\n14A is applicable because, when assessee makes several\ninvestments in various companies and out of such\ninvestments, only one or two investments yield exempt\nincome and remaining investments does not yield exempt\nincome, then, the expenses relatable to investment which\ndoes not yield

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

deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, observed that, since the Assessing Officer has not verified the issue in light of relevant provisions of the Act and also simply accepted the explanation of assessee with regard to disallowance contemplated under section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules

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

dividend income of Rs.\n13.20 crore during the year from its investments, and rejecting its claim\nof not having incurred any expenditure and computing the disallowance\nat 1% of the annual average of investments of Rs. 110.115 crores: Rs.\n1,10,11,500/-; (ii). disallowance of the claim of the assessee company\nfor deduction under section 80G in respect

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANNATAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Gonuguntla Nirmala Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Devi, Anantapur Circle 1 Pan:Aipbd2345Q Anantapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Venkata Ramana, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. Naveen Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partner In M/S. Nithin Sai Construction. He Is Also A Director In M/S. Nithin Sai Agrotech (P) Ltd . The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs.23,89,810/- Admitting Income From House Property, Business Income & From Other Sources. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) & Subsequently

disallowed the amount of Rs.86,200/- claimed as deduction towards interest on the ground that the interest pertains to loan taken for purchase of residential property at Vijayawada during Feb. 2016 and therefore, interest cannot be claimed out of rental income from the Nithin Sai Complex. Further, in absence of any satisfactory explanation regarding the cash deposit of Rs.50

ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

dividend income. The assessee did not disallow any expenditure suo moto qua this exempted income u/s.14A of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. AO ITA Nos.680 & 681/Hyd/2024 7 calculated the disallowance of Rs.1,60,76,293/- in accordance with the Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the addition made

ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

dividend income. The assessee did not disallow any expenditure suo moto qua this exempted income u/s.14A of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. AO ITA Nos.680 & 681/Hyd/2024 7 calculated the disallowance of Rs.1,60,76,293/- in accordance with the Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the addition made

ANDHRA CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

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

dividend income in the year under consideration, no disallowance can be made by the Assessing Officer. For the above said purposes, we may fruitfully rely upon the decisions in the case of Chemnivest Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 61 taxmann.com 118 (Del) and CIT Vs. Holcim India Private Limited of Delhi High Courts. Accordingly, this ground is decided in favour