MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

section 80IB(10) deduction claim. Learned coordinate bench has already upheld the assessee’s claim in Para 31. We therefore direct the assessing authority to frame its consequential computation as per law i.e. he shall reiterate his impugned sec 80IB (10) disallowance

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

section 80IB(10) deduction claim. Learned coordinate bench has already upheld the assessee’s claim in Para 31. We therefore direct the assessing authority to frame its consequential computation as per law i.e. he shall reiterate his impugned sec 80IB (10) disallowance

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

section 80IB(10) deduction claim. Learned coordinate bench has already upheld the assessee’s claim in Para 31. We therefore direct the assessing authority to frame its consequential computation as per law i.e. he shall reiterate his impugned sec 80IB (10) disallowance

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

disallowance under section 14A was called for in its case. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pr. CIT (Central) Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022) 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi). 10

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 80IA(8) and mandates of judicial authorities. 4b. By rejecting the comparable market rate for procurement of power from Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) and determining the Arm’s Length Price at Rs. 2.97/- per unit, being the median of the various sale prices charged by the power unit to the independent third parties. 4c. By not appreciating

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

disallowance of Rs.2,03,752/- made by the Assessing Officer was in order\"\n\"15. Income exempt under Section 10

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

disallowance of Rs.2,03,752/- made by the\nAssessing Officer was in order\"\n\"15. Income exempt under Section 10

JASPER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance under Section 14A, even though no income exempt under Section 10(34) or Section 10(38) was claimed as exempt

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 14A(2) of the Act. Further, after amendment of Rule 8D with effect from the financial year 2016, computation of disallowance @ 1% on average monthly average of investments is mandatory, whether or not, the assessee has incurred any expenditure for the purpose of earning dividend income. Since, the assessee has 10

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

section 14A r.w Rule 8D, after taking cognizance of the fact that\nthe assessee company had earned exempt 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

FEDERATION OF AP COOPERATIVE URBAN BANKS AND CREDIT SOCIETIES LIMITED HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.464/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Federation Of Ap Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Urban Banks Ward 9(1) & Credit Societies Ltd. Hyderabad Hyd, Hyderabad Pan:Aaaaf7350F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025

disallowance under section 80P of the Act cannot be made in the return processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, on the basis of our aforesaid observation and on the basis of the findings given by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narhari Maharaj Page 10

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of an amount of Rs.13,02,340/- 4. Any other grounds which the assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 10. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business of dealing with infrastructure related contracts and projects, filed its original return

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of an amount of Rs.13,02,340/- 4. Any other grounds which the assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 10. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business of dealing with infrastructure related contracts and projects, filed its original return

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of an amount of Rs.13,02,340/- 4. Any other grounds which the assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 10. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business of dealing with infrastructure related contracts and projects, filed its original return

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed the exemption of\nRs.18,14,003/- u/s.54F of the Act. The Ld. AR relying on the\ndecision of Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals (page nos.1 to 53 of\nthe case laws of paper book) and submitted that even if the amounts\nare invested in CGAS after the due date specified u/s.139(1)\nof the Act, but before filing

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

10,265/-, Disallowance of lead role expenditure of Rs.19,58,509/-, Disallowance of payment made to M/s. Antony Burchell of Rs. 3,08,08,089/-, Disallowance under section

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

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 10

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

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 10