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

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

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)

10,00,000/- shown as cash payment for purchase of new vehicles. Even though the above expenditure is capital in nature, the A.O. made addition u/s 69C of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 29. The Learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order

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)

10,00,000/- shown as cash payment for purchase of new vehicles. Even though the above expenditure is capital in nature, the A.O. made addition u/s 69C of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 29. The Learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order

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)

10,00,000/- shown as cash payment for purchase of new vehicles. Even though the above expenditure is capital in nature, the A.O. made addition u/s 69C of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 29. The Learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order

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

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

29,89,465/- alone could be disallowed. This is a verifiable fact. learned Assessing Officer has to verify these figures, the interest expense viz-a-viz the quantum of exempt income to recompute the disallowance. 22. In view of this need to verify the facts and figures, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest

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

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

29,89,465/- alone could be disallowed. This is a verifiable fact. learned Assessing Officer has to verify these figures, the interest expense viz-a-viz the quantum of exempt income to recompute the disallowance. 22. In view of this need to verify the facts and figures, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest

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

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

29,89,465/- alone could be disallowed. This is a verifiable fact. learned Assessing Officer has to verify these figures, the interest expense viz-a-viz the quantum of exempt income to recompute the disallowance. 22. In view of this need to verify the facts and figures, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest

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.95,48,200/- 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 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with potential

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.95,48,200/- 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 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with potential

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.95,48,200/- 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 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with potential

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.95,48,200/- 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 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with potential

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.95,48,200/- 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 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with potential

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, 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 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

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Rishi Educational A.C.I.T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaaar1952M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Esthen N Hangal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/04/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Aop & Registered U/S 12A Of The I.T. Act Vide Proceedings Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad In F.No.Hqrs/I/15/12A/Dit(E) Dated 27.02.2003. The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 On 06.11.2017 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.Nil. M/S. Ravi Rishi Educational Society Is Run By Close Family Members Mr.N.Rajababu, Mr.Ramesh Babu, Mrs. N. Sulochana, Mrs. N. Yashoda, Mrs. N.

29-45). 13. The learned Counsel for the assessee in his second plank of argument referring to the various decisions submitted that the addition u/s 68 & 69 cannot be made when the assessee is eligible for benefit u/s 11A of the I.T, Act. 14. He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case had made addition of Rs.21

SUJATHA KANCHARLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowing sundry creditors of an amount being of Rs.38,29,272/-, at 10%, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest under section