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). It is therefore, held that construction for the Blocks F,K.L & A.D, E was not completed. 07.0 Thus out of the total 12 blocks, construction was not completed in 8 Blocks and for this reason assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80fB(10) in view of the decision of ITAT in the case of Sainath Estates

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). It is therefore, held that construction for the Blocks F,K.L & A.D, E was not completed. 07.0 Thus out of the total 12 blocks, construction was not completed in 8 Blocks and for this reason assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80fB(10) in view of the decision of ITAT in the case of Sainath Estates

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). It is therefore, held that construction for the Blocks F,K.L & A.D, E was not completed. 07.0 Thus out of the total 12 blocks, construction was not completed in 8 Blocks and for this reason assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80fB(10) in view of the decision of ITAT in the case of Sainath Estates

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

Disallowance of CSR expenses of Rs. 1,42,97,133/- against the returned income of Rs. 50,81,16,931/-. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved, the assessee raised certain objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also going through the material available on record, dismissed the objections raised by the assessee. Thereafter

VENKATESH DAGGUBATI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

10,739/- 20% Loss in Venkatesh Enterprises 6 902/- (Proprietary concern) 7 3,30,506/- Disallowance u/s 14A With regard to foreign. travel expenses, the Assessing Officer held that 6n perusal. of the details filed and copy of the ledger a/c filed during the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the appellant has undertaken a. pleasure trip with

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)

20. To sum up, out of the disallowance of Rs. 13,02,340/-, the assessee gets relief of Rs. 45,086/-, and the balance addition of Rs. 12,57,454/- is upheld. 21. In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.280/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed. ITA No.281/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 22. The grounds raised by the assessee read

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)

20. To sum up, out of the disallowance of Rs. 13,02,340/-, the assessee gets relief of Rs. 45,086/-, and the balance addition of Rs. 12,57,454/- is upheld. 21. In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.280/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed. ITA No.281/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 22. The grounds raised by the assessee read

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)

20. To sum up, out of the disallowance of Rs. 13,02,340/-, the assessee gets relief of Rs. 45,086/-, and the balance addition of Rs. 12,57,454/- is upheld. 21. In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.280/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed. ITA No.281/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 22. The grounds raised by the assessee read

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.:

disallowance of Rs.2,10,265/- made by the Ld. AO on account of interest paid under section 201(1A) of the Act for delay in deposit of tax deducted at source (“TDS”). The Ld. AR contended that such interest is compensatory Page 3 of 20

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

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

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

20,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the case\nwas referred to the Ld. DVO for the purpose of valuation of the\nproperty, who valued the fair market value at Rs.67,34,000/- and on\nthe basis of the valuation done by the DVO, the Ld. AO treated\nRs.67,34,000/- as the sale consideration of the land for the purpose

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

10/- per share, the company raised funds from private equity funds by allotting the shares at a premium of Rs. 187.58 per share. According to the learned CIT(A), considering the nature of material available on record, the preponderance of probabilities is against the assessee. Learned CIT(A) also referred to the confessional statement of Mr. Raghurama Krishna Raju recorded

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

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

10/- per share, the company raised funds from private equity funds by allotting the shares at a premium of Rs. 187.58 per share. According to the learned CIT(A), considering the nature of material available on record, the preponderance of probabilities is against the assessee. Learned CIT(A) also referred to the confessional statement of Mr. Raghurama Krishna Raju recorded

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

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

10/- per share, the company raised funds from private equity funds by allotting the shares at a premium of Rs. 187.58 per share. According to the learned CIT(A), considering the nature of material available on record, the preponderance of probabilities is against the assessee. Learned CIT(A) also referred to the confessional statement of Mr. Raghurama Krishna Raju recorded

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

10(5) of the Act. As there is a failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the mandatory condition, therefore, the deduction claimed under section 10AA is not admissible to the assessee. 16. The only grievance of the assessee before us is that the requisite notice as contemplated under section 143(1) has not been given

MANJEERA PROJECTS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

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. Page

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

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. Page

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

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. Page