HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

13). The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,05,78,27,779/- representing Development deferment charges of Rs.3,68,89,350/-; Environment Impact fee of Rs.11,73,15,885/-; Fire Service Infrastructure Development charges of Rs.2,68,02,507/- and NALA charges of Rs.187,68,19,961/-. The learned Commissioner of Income

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 qua blocks “A”, “D” and “E” and delete the same pertaining

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 qua blocks “A”, “D” and “E” and delete the same pertaining

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 qua blocks “A”, “D” and “E” and delete the same pertaining

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)

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), and addition towards Form 26AS mismatch. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A., referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.12.2024, submitted

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

13) of the Act is not correct either in law or on facts and in both. 2. That the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP is not justified in confirming the specified domestic transfer pricing adjustments made by the lower authorities, totalling Rs. 154,38,00,527/- U/s. 92CA

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of donations under Section 80G towards CSR expenditure. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate, referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024, submitted that, the assessment

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

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)

10 Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld and the appeal filed by the assessee be dismissed. 12. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue involved in the present appeal is with regard to the disallowance

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

10. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. The assessee has challenged disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 in light of provisions of section 14A(2) of the Act and argued that, in absence of satisfaction with reference to the books of accounts

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

disallowance of Rs.6,10,401/- towards Income credited to Profit and Loss account which is exempt shown in ITR. 5.1. The Ld. AO has erred in not following the directions of the Disputed Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) while passing the final assessment order; is a clear violation of provisions of section 144C(10) and (13

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 44DA of the Act of Rs. 3,49,255/- and Disallowance under section 40(a) of the Act of Rs. 13

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

13,00,57,930/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground no.7 of the assessee's appeal is addition of Rs. 4,60,131/- towards ROC fee paid for increase in authorised capital. 8. During

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,SD ROAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 537/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sheladia Associates Inc, Adit (Int Taxn)-2, Secunderabad Vs. Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs7792F] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

13 on this aspect explaining the details of the expense mentioned at page No. 4849 of the Paper Book and allow such expense which is exclusively attributable to the Indian project. No disallowance, therefore, could be made under section 44C of the Act. 19. Insofar as the amount of Rs. 1,60,78,394/- under section

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

10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short issue for consideration before us is whether the CPC was justified in disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act. In this regard, it is crucial to refer to provisions

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised