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

26] The impugned judgment of (he Tribunal is set aside; and in the facts of the present case, the decision of the Assessing Officer to disallow deduction under section 80-IB(10

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

26] The impugned judgment of (he Tribunal is set aside; and in the facts of the present case, the decision of the Assessing Officer to disallow deduction under section 80-IB(10

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

26] The impugned judgment of (he Tribunal is set aside; and in the facts of the present case, the decision of the Assessing Officer to disallow deduction under section 80-IB(10

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

26,864/- after making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance under section 14A r.w Rule 8D, after taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee company had earned exempt dividend income of Rs. 13.20 crore during the year from its investments, and rejecting its claim of not having incurred any expenditure and computing the disallowance at 1% of the annual average

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

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

26. 800. which constituted less than 1 per cent. of the total scheduled funds. Ile, however, accepted the basis of calculation applied by the Assessing Officer and directed a disallowance of .05 per cent. of the amount determined to be average investment. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to which the Revenue appealed, restored the Assessing Officer's determination holding

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

26,864/-\nafter making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance\nunder section 14A r.w Rule 8D, after taking cognizance of the fact that\nthe assessee company had earned exempt dividend income of Rs.\n13.20 crore during the year from its investments, and rejecting its claim\nof not having incurred any expenditure and computing the disallowance\nat 1% of the annual average

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)

10,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 27.09.2016. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 06.03.2020, however, no return was filed in response. The A.O. noted that, an expenditure of Rs. 43,41,133/- booked

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)

10,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 27.09.2016. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 06.03.2020, however, no return was filed in response. The A.O. noted that, an expenditure of Rs. 43,41,133/- booked

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)

10,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 27.09.2016. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 06.03.2020, however, no return was filed in response. The A.O. noted that, an expenditure of Rs. 43,41,133/- booked

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

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 10 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 income earned during the year under consideration. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 23. Next coming to the addition on account of long term capital gains, the grievance

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

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 10 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 income earned during the year under consideration. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 23. Next coming to the addition on account of long term capital gains, the grievance

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

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 10 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 income earned during the year under consideration. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 23. Next coming to the addition on account of long term capital gains, the grievance

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges of Rs.79,87,930/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of 26 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges of Rs.79,87,930/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of 26 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges of Rs.79,87,930/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of 26 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges of Rs.79,87,930/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of 26 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges of Rs.79,87,930/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of 26 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with