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

disallowed and not the entire claim of deduction. Thus, according to him, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for all the blocks completed by it. 11. As regards the interest income which has been claimed as a deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that these deposits

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

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

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

section 13(1)(c) r.w.s.13(2)(c) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer after considering relevant provisions of the Act and also applying provisions of sec.40A(2)(a) observed that, appellant society has made excessive and unreasonable payment to the above two companies for rendering services which cannot be allowed as deduction. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. TKR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Tkr Educational Society, Of Income Tax, 16-2-751/A/31/Ctirumala (Exemptions), Hills, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, Telangana – 500036. Pan : Aaaat7850Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

10(23)(C)(vi) have not been uploaded in the software and therefore, disallowance was made by the CPC/Assessing Officer. Before the assessee’s application u/s 154 could have been adjudicated, the assessee had preferred the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and also produced the copy of corrected copy of ITR-7 wherein the correct figures of exempt income were

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

disallowed and not the entire claim of deduction. Thus, according to him, the assessee is Page 8 of 23 ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for all the blocks completed by it. 11. As regards the interest income which has been claimed as a deduction u/s 80IB(10

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

disallowed and not the entire claim of deduction. Thus, according to him, the assessee is Page 8 of 23 ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for all the blocks completed by it. 11. As regards the interest income which has been claimed as a deduction u/s 80IB(10

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

disallowed and not the entire claim of deduction. Thus, according to him, the assessee is Page 8 of 23 ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for all the blocks completed by it. 11. As regards the interest income which has been claimed as a deduction u/s 80IB(10

JOGINPALLY B R EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 10(23)(C) exemption in the course of assessment (s) as upheld in the CIT (A) following detailed lower appellate discussion: “02.0 The appellant is a registered society engaged in imparting education in the field of running Engineering College and Medical college. It filed its returns of Income ~ for assessment years under consideration claiming Page

J B EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

section 10(23)(C) exemption in the course of assessment (s) as upheld in the CIT (A) following detailed lower appellate discussion: “02.0 The appellant is a registered society engaged in imparting education in the field of running Engineering College and Medical college. It filed its returns of Income ~ for assessment years under consideration claiming Page

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.

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

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.

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

ANDHRA PRADESH BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10. MS. M. Narmada, learned CIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the assessment order has been passed with DIN no. 20192014100018510 14C on 31.12.2019 itself which is evident from the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A) based on entry in ITBA portal wherein the demand of Rs.313,17,11,113/- was generated