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

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

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

sections 234B and 234C of the Act relating to Assessment Years 2009–10, 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

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

sections 234B and 234C\nof the Act relating to Assessment Years 2009–10, 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2016–\n17, amounting to Rs.3,59,40,202/-, by debiting the same to the Profit and Loss\nAccount. However, while filing the returns of income for the respective\n assessment years, the assessee had already disallowed the said provision in\nthe computation

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

31,26,864/-\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

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)

disallowed separately, amounting to double addition. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 25. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, during the course of search, it shows clear difference between net profit as financial statements found in the office

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)

disallowed separately, amounting to double addition. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 25. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, during the course of search, it shows clear difference between net profit as financial statements found in the office

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)

disallowed separately, amounting to double addition. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 25. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, during the course of search, it shows clear difference between net profit as financial statements found in the office

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. The assessee has challenged disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 in light of provisions of section 14A(2) of the Act and argued that, in absence of satisfaction with reference to the books of accounts

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

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

31,375/- on this score, learned CIT(A) thought it fit that the allowance of the balance must be subject to the restriction that the depreciation on building from which rent was earned not to be allowed, disallowance under section 14A of the Act and interest on borrowed capital allowed under section

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

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

31,375/- on this score, learned CIT(A) thought it fit that the allowance of the balance must be subject to the restriction that the depreciation on building from which rent was earned not to be allowed, disallowance under section 14A of the Act and interest on borrowed capital allowed under section

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

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

31,375/- on this score, learned CIT(A) thought it fit that the allowance of the balance must be subject to the restriction that the depreciation on building from which rent was earned not to be allowed, disallowance under section 14A of the Act and interest on borrowed capital allowed under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

10,00,000 as determined by the Ld. AO on ad-hoc basis; Additional Ground 3.1. erred in disallowing the expenses pertaining to AY 2010-11 amounting to Rs. 11,51,001 without appreciating the facts of the Appellant; 3.2. Without prejudice to ground, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in setting-aside the matter

RAMANAGARAM ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses relatable to income exempt under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee further submitted the details of petition filed by Andhra Bank (financial creditor of the assessee company) under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short “IBC, 2016”) before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short “NCLT

RAMANAGARAM ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses relatable to income exempt under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee further submitted the details of petition filed by Andhra Bank (financial creditor of the assessee company) under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short “IBC, 2016”) before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short “NCLT

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

10% to 14% in case of any delay in delivery of flats to the customers. As per the contractual agreement with the customers in terms of MOU, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advances and debited under the head finance charges. The AO has disallowed interest expenses on the ground that the appellant failed to prove utilization of advances

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

10% to 14% in case of any delay in delivery of flats to the customers. As per the contractual agreement with the customers in terms of MOU, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advances and debited under the head finance charges. The AO has disallowed interest expenses on the ground that the appellant failed to prove utilization of advances

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

10% to 14% in case of any delay in delivery of flats to the customers. As per the contractual agreement with the customers in terms of MOU, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advances and debited under the head finance charges. The AO has disallowed interest expenses on the ground that the appellant failed to prove utilization of advances