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

iii) disallowance of the claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of the Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs. 1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his order passed under section

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

iii) disallowance of\nthe claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of\nthe Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect\nof alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs.\n1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his\norder passed under section

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

Bench: Us :

disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs.15.75 lacs. 4 Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited Vs. ITO 4. On a perusal of the record, the A.O. further observed that the assessee company had during the subject year acquired 3,15,00,000 shares of M/s. Kineta Global Limited at a face value of Rs.10/- each. On verification

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

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

disallowance made by the ld.CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the issue is required to be send back to the file of the Assessing Officer by issuing the similar direction as we have done in the case of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) in ITA Nos.1722 to 1726/Hyd/2022 wherein it was held as under

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

disallowance made by the ld.CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the issue is required to be send back to the file of the Assessing Officer by issuing the similar direction as we have done in the case of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) in ITA Nos.1722 to 1726/Hyd/2022 wherein it was held as under

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

10, dated 24.10.2019, which in turn arises from the\norder passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 29.12.2010 for A.Y. 2008-09.\nThe assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following\ngrounds of appeal before us:\n“1. The order

KAUSALYA AGRO FARMS AMD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

10% to 14% in case of any delay in delivery of flats to the customers. As per the contractual agreement with the customers in terms of MOU, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advances and debited under the head finance charges. The AO has disallowed interest expenses on the ground ITA No.804/Hyd/2025 12 that the appellant failed to prove

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

disallowance of interest reversal, stating it was a consequential adjustment to avoid double taxation.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "8D", "143(3)", "143(2)", "40(a)(ii)", "234B", "234C", "37", "10(34)", "57(iii

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

2) of the Act was issued on 26/11/2019 and subsequent notice / questionnaire was also issued on 29/12/2020. In response, the assessee filed its submissions on 23/10/2020 and 12/12/2020. Thereafter, on 11/01/2021 a detailed show-cause notice was issued to the assessee U/s. 92C(3) of the Act. In reply, the assessee furnished the details as called for vide its letter

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

iii). The submission of Id. counsel for the assessee is that this issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Holcin India (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that if no dividend income was earned, section 14A could not be invoked.\nΤΑ 502/D/12 & CO 68/D/2014 Vireet

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

Bench: Us:

2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee company during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions/receipt of income, viz. (i) receipt of payments towards contracts: Rs.3,20,42,152/-; (ii) interest income: Rs.92,069/-; and (iii) 4 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO time deposits with bank: Rs.19,54,348/-, but had not filed

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 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing the deduction. 6. The learned

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 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing the deduction. 6. The learned

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 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing the deduction. 6. The learned

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)

disallowance of his claim for deduction of expenditure of Rs.16,33,050/-. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 5 Rashid Hussain vs. ACIT 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders

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

iii) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further ought to have seen that the Appellant had already disallowed Rs.5,000/- u/s. 14A in its computation of income towards the accounting work for recording the transactions but had not incurred any other expenditure. Hence, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.10,67,172/- u/s.14A made