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

disallowed the claim on the ground that the approval for "E" building was granted on 11th of October, 2002, as an extension of the approval granted for the buildings in A to D and therefore, the E block, being continuation of A, B, C & D buildings, the project must be held to have commenced prior to October

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 the claim on the ground that the approval for "E" building was granted on 11th of October, 2002, as an extension of the approval granted for the buildings in A to D and therefore, the E block, being continuation of A, B, C & D buildings, the project must be held to have commenced prior to October

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 the claim on the ground that the approval for "E" building was granted on 11th of October, 2002, as an extension of the approval granted for the buildings in A to D and therefore, the E block, being continuation of A, B, C & D buildings, the project must be held to have commenced prior to October

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

37,69,646/- during the year under consideration. Therefore, the existence of exempt income during the year is not in dispute. In such circumstances, merely because certain investments have not yielded exempt income during the year, the entire disallowance made under section 14A of the Act cannot be deleted when admittedly there are investments which have yielded exempt income during

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

disallowance of interest reversal, stating it was a consequential adjustment to avoid double taxation.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "8D", "143(3)", "143(2)", "40(a)(ii)", "234B", "234C", "37", "10

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to\nsection 37(1) of the Act.\nThe company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the\ndonation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief\nFund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with section 80G(1)(i) of the Act.\nThe company claim deduction to the extent

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

10,28,190.00. That return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 23.3.1999. On 16.8.1999 a notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee stating that in the course of assessment proceedings under Section 143 it was noticed by the Department that the assessee had debited to its Profit & Loss Account

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

POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed CSR expenditure while computing business income. He submitted that Section 80G of the Act provides that Page 3 of 13 ITA-TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022 any sums paid by the Assessee in the previous year as donations to the specified associations/entities shall be allowable as deduction as per the limits prescribed thereunder; that the restriction provided under section 37

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed CSR expenditure while computing business income. He submitted that Section 80G of the Act provides that Page 3 of 13 ITA-TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022 any sums paid by the Assessee in the previous year as donations to the specified associations/entities shall be allowable as deduction as per the limits prescribed thereunder; that the restriction provided under section 37

GMR HOSPITALITY AND RETAIL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO HYDERABAD DUTY FREE RETAIL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2016-17 Gmr Hospitality & Retail Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited (Successor Of Ward-2(2), Hyderabad Duty Free Retail Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcg 2928 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain, Ar Revenue By Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2021 Order

10. As stated above, on facts in the case of M/s. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd., the Department has disallowed the deduction/debit to the P&L account made by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 29,49,088 being unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation. At the very outset, it may be stated that there is no dispute

DELOITTEE TAX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

10. It is, therefore, clear that the question that is relevant to be answered on this issue is whether the donations given for compliance with the provisions under section 135 of the Companies Act, to the institutions mentioned in section 80G(2) of the Act are qualified for deduction under section 80G of the Act also. Page

DELOITTE & TOUCHE ASSURANCE & ENTERPRISE RISK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

10. It is, therefore, clear that the question that is relevant to be answered on this issue is whether the donations given for compliance with the provisions under section 135 of the Companies Act, to the institutions mentioned in section 80G(2) of the Act are qualified for deduction under section 80G of the Act also. Page

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

37, ought not to have disallowed Rs.\n37,79,77,452/- under section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

37(1) of the Act as business expenditure. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. AO in disallowing the sum of Rs.2,10,265/-. Consequently, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 9. Ground No. 2 of the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs.3,08,08,089/- 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

section 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,77,839; 3. erred in upholding the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 10

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

37, ought not to have disallowed Rs.\n37,79,77,452/- under Section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under Section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored

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