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

46,62,900/-\nmonthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the\nvalue of investment, income from which does not or shall not form Less: Already\npart of the total income.\ndisallowance shown.\nRs.12,17,882/-\nDisallowance under section 14A of the Act\nRs.3,34,45,018/-\n4.1 In order to examine the contentions of the assessee-company

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

46,62,900/-\nLess: Already\ndisallowance shown.\nRs.12,17,882/-\nDisallowance under Section 14A of the Act\nRs.3,34,45,018/-\n4.1 In order to examine the contentions of the assessee-company, it is necessary to refer\nto the relevant provisions of Section 14A of the Act which was introduced by the Finance Act,\n2001 with retrospective effect from

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed the exemption of\nRs.18,14,003/- u/s.54F of the Act. The Ld. AR relying on the\ndecision of Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals (page nos.1 to 53 of\nthe case laws of paper book) and submitted that even if the amounts\nare invested in CGAS after the due date specified u/s.139(1)\nof the Act, but before filing

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

section 80G of the Act in respect of such donations which\nformed part of the spend towards CSR. Respectfully following the\njurisdictional tribunal, ground no 3 is allowed.\n5. Ground No.4 is raised against disallowance of business expenses\non estimate basis amounting to Rs.16,31,00,000/- on account of\ndeduction U/s 80IA. During the assessment proceedings, the AO\ncalled

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

10(38) of the Act and also that the assessee incurred expenses. It is absurd for the assessee to say that when they are making and maintaining the huge investments to the tune of Rs. 330 crores, they do not incur any expenses. The quantum of interest and administrative expenses is a different matter, but according

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

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

10(38) of the Act and also that the assessee incurred expenses. It is absurd for the assessee to say that when they are making and maintaining the huge investments to the tune of Rs. 330 crores, they do not incur any expenses. The quantum of interest and administrative expenses is a different matter, but according

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

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

10(38) of the Act and also that the assessee incurred expenses. It is absurd for the assessee to say that when they are making and maintaining the huge investments to the tune of Rs. 330 crores, they do not incur any expenses. The quantum of interest and administrative expenses is a different matter, but according

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

10 “ 66. The next issue that came up for consideration from Ground No.5 of assessee’s appeal is disallowance of sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- u/s 37(1) of the Act towards penalty paid u/s 46(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for deviation in implementation of KYC-AML guidelines. The assessee bank has not added back penalty

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 46. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 46. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 46. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 46. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 46. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

10% ad hoc disallowance of land development expenses. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. on perusal of profit and loss account, observed that, the assessee has shown gross receipts of Rs. 6,86,89,209/- and had claimed huge land development expenses of Rs. 4,39,46,592/-. The A.O., vide notice under Section

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

section 43B.” Instead, the assessee inadvertently mentioned Rs.914,10,56,673/-, which was the net figure after reducing the allowable payment of Rs.1,07,15,618/-. It was thus argued that this was merely an inadvertent reporting error in the ITR form, without any effect on the taxable income of the ITA Nos.285 & 307/Hyd/2024 24 assessee. The Ld. AR emphasized