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

disallowance of Rs. 1,10,11,500/- worked out by him under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii), on the said

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

disallowance of Rs. 1,10,11,500/-\nworked out by him under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii), on the said

THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

10,00,000 shares X Rs.5.82 per share) under Section 56(2)(viia). 6. The A.O. after, inter alia, making the aforesaid addition/ disallowance

ASST. DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMP)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. ACTION FOR WELFARE AND AWAKENING IN RURAL ENVIRONMENT (AWARE), HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

10(23C) of the Act for these three years, the question of accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act does not arise at all for A.Ys. 1990-91 to 1992- 93, as the scheme of section 11(2) of the Act operates only when exemption is claimed under section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that

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

2. l .2019. As there was a delay of two days in filing the return of income, the Assessing officer rejected the exemption claimed u/ s 11 of the I.T.Act. The disallowance of the claim is confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals). In this regard, the appellant humbly submits that the CBDT vide Circular

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2. l .2019. As there was a delay of two days in filing the return of income, the Assessing officer rejected the exemption claimed u/ s 11 of the I.T.Act. The disallowance of the claim is confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals). In this regard, the appellant humbly submits that the CBDT vide Circular

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 15.02.2022 calling for return of income. In response, the assessee filed its return of income on 07.06.2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs.nil. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee by the Assessing Officer. After examining the material

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

Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 15.02.2022 calling for return of income. In response, the assessee filed its return of income on 07.06.2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs.nil. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee by the Assessing Officer. After examining the material

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

2) of the Act, which is mandatory for initiating scrutiny proceedings. 4. The LD. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Ld. AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant under section 145 of the Act, and thereafter making separate additions on specific items, which is untenable once the books have been rejected and income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10% in expenditure for the year under consideration. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to make adhoc disallowance of excessive and unreasonable payment in terms of section 40A(2

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and the Revenue\nare partly allowed

2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\n\n3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is\nengaged in the business of manufacturing of bulk drugs and\nformulation product. A search and seizure operation under Section\n132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in M/s. MSN\nGroup of cases on 24.02.2021. The appellant

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

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

10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement manufacturer in western India, sells its ordinary Portland cement under the name

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

2) of the Act. 6. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 147 of the Act, dated 06/03/2025 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.37,03,180/- after making certain additions/disallowances, viz., (i) disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act: Rs.1,50,000/-; and (ii) disallowance of the assessee

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

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

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on\n15.02.2022 calling for return of income. In response, the assessee\nfiled its return of income on 07.06.2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring\ntotal income of Rs.nil. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1)\nwere issued and served on the assessee by the Assessing Officer.\nAfter examining the material