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

5(1), Hyderabad, ITA 145 & 482/Hyd/2022, dated 16/08/2023, wherein it has been held that there is no blanket prohibition under the Income-tax Act against allowing deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR-related donations, except in cases specifically barred under section 80G(2)(iiihk) and section 80G(2)(iiihl). For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite

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

5. Feeling aggrieved with the above order, assessee filed appeal u/s 246A of the Act before ld.CIT(A)-3, who vide order dt.31.05.2022 partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee and Revenue both are now in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 7. Before us, ld. AR submitted that

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

5. Feeling aggrieved with the above order, assessee filed appeal u/s 246A of the Act before ld.CIT(A)-3, who vide order dt.31.05.2022 partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee and Revenue both are now in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 7. Before us, ld. AR submitted that

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

section 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing

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

section 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing

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 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

10, section 10A[, section 10AA], clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB [, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, [section 115JB, 5[section 115JC] or section 115VW] [or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section

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

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 its ordinary Portland cement under the name

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

10. In the case of the assessee, it had filed a revised return on 30.3.2010 which is before expiry of one year from the relevant assessment year and therefore the return filed is a valid return as per the provisions section 139(5), as the original return was filed under section 139(1) within due date prescribed. In fact

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

10. In the case of the assessee, it had filed a revised return on 30.3.2010 which is before expiry of one year from the relevant assessment year and therefore the return filed is a valid return as per the provisions section 139(5), as the original return was filed under section 139(1) within due date prescribed. In fact

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80AC and 80A(5) in support of the case of the revenue. 7.1. Further, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the Assessing Officer was correct in disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80AC and 80A(5) in support of the case of the revenue. 7.1. Further, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the Assessing Officer was correct in disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80AC and 80A(5) in support of the case of the revenue. 7.1. Further, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the Assessing Officer was correct in disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80AC and 80A(5) in support of the case of the revenue. 7.1. Further, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the Assessing Officer was correct in disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were

ACIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANDOR MEDICAIDS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue and Cross-Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

5) of section 115BAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for previous year 2020-21 and subsequent financial years i.e. FY 2021-22 onwards. The assessee has received a proposal for adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) on 14.12.2022 for Rs 15,11,380/- with regard to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act 4 Sandor Medicaids Private Limited

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

5(1), Hyderabad, ITA 145 & 482/Hyd/2022, dated\n16/08/2023, wherein it has been held that there is no blanket prohibition\nunder the Income-tax Act against allowing deduction under section 80G\nin respect of CSR-related donations, except in cases specifically barred\nunder section 80G(2)(iiihk) and section 80G(2)(iiihl). For the sake of\nclarity, we deem it apposite

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

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 of income and therefore no deduction was claimed by the\nassessee