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

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

30-12-2017 10,00,000 31-01-2018 10,00,000 28-02-2018 10,00,000 31-03-2018 10,00,000 Sub Total 1,09,05,730 Total 3,72,55,730 50% of the amount being claimed as deduction was disallowed by the assessing officer because CSR expenditure by the assessee forms a part

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

30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement manufacturer in western India, sells

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

10, 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2016–17, amounting to Rs.3,59,40,202/-, by debiting the same to the Profit and Loss Account. However, while filing the returns of income for the respective assessment years, the assessee had already disallowed the said provision in the computation of income and therefore no deduction was claimed by the assessee in those

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

30'\n", "summary": { "facts": "The Revenue is in appeal against the deletion of disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for AY 2017-18. The AO had disallowed Rs.3,34,45,018/-. For AY 2018-19, the Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance of Rs.2,09,08,248/- made by the AO concerning

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

disallowance of the claim\nof the assessee company for deduction under section 80G of the Act of\nRs. 1.88 crore (approx) by following the decision of the ITAT,\nHyd erabad in Optum Global Solutions (India) Private Limited Vs.\nDCIT Circle 5(1), Hyderabad, ITA 145 & 482/Hyd/2022, dated\n16/08/2023, wherein it has been held that there is no blanket prohibition\nunder

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

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

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

30,53,616/- on account of dividend. Since this income flows from investments without Page 5 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 making the statutory disallowance under section 14A of the Act, learned CIT(A) proposed to make disallowance. Assessee pleaded that such an issue does not arise out of assessment order and, therefore, shall not be taken

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

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

30,53,616/- on account of dividend. Since this income flows from investments without Page 5 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 making the statutory disallowance under section 14A of the Act, learned CIT(A) proposed to make disallowance. Assessee pleaded that such an issue does not arise out of assessment order and, therefore, shall not be taken

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

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

30,53,616/- on account of dividend. Since this income flows from investments without Page 5 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 making the statutory disallowance under section 14A of the Act, learned CIT(A) proposed to make disallowance. Assessee pleaded that such an issue does not arise out of assessment order and, therefore, shall not be taken