DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 80IA(5) of the Act, as exempt from tax, but no deduction claimed from income from other heads since there is no positive gross total income in view of loss from Business disclosed of (-) Rs. 37,57,11,970/- is more than the income from other heads of Rs.18,53,19,771/-, which resulted in net loss from Business

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 80IA(5) of the Act, as exempt from tax, but no deduction claimed from income from other heads since there is no positive gross total income in view of loss from Business disclosed of (-) Rs. 37,57,11,970/- is more than the income from other heads of Rs.18,53,19,771/-, which resulted in net loss from Business

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

ACIT., EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHARMACEUTICALS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Pharmaceuticals Export Of Income Tax, Promotion Council Of India, Exemptions, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcp4643C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rv. Chalam, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. 22 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the disallowance of Rs. 10,15,818/- sustained by CIT(A), will result in addition of the amount twice to the gross total income of the assessee, once through foreign contribution received reimbursed amount is already included in the total income

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

5. The similar issue arose in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e., A.Y. 2014-15, where after considering the submissions my predecessor has confirmed the additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer as under: "It is also observed by Assessing Officer that the assessee society invested the funds in violation of section 11

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

section 80A(5) r.w.s. 80AC. The AO while disallowing the claim also observed that the appellant is a works contractor and the company executes contract only and is not a developer for the 23 projects on which deduction u/s. 80IA has been claimed. In view of the same an opportunity was given to the AO to explain the same

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

section 80A(5) r.w.s. 80AC. The AO while disallowing the claim also observed that the appellant is a works contractor and the company executes contract only and is not a developer for the 23 projects on which deduction u/s. 80IA has been claimed. In view of the same an opportunity was given to the AO to explain the same

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

11 Works - Investigation, Preparation of HPs, design, excavation, construction of CM & CD works of HNSS main canal from Km.340.000 to Km.360.000 excluding Tunnel from Km.358.000 to 360.000 under HNSS Phase-II in Anantapur Dist. - Package No.9. 5. Modernisation of Mylavaram South Canal (Package-91) Earthwork Excavation, C.C.Lining including Mylavaram Head works and improvements to the reservoir South Canal from

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

11 Works - Investigation, Preparation of HPs, design, excavation, construction of CM & CD works of HNSS main canal from Km.340.000 to Km.360.000 excluding Tunnel from Km.358.000 to 360.000 under HNSS Phase-II in Anantapur Dist. - Package No.9. 5. Modernisation of Mylavaram South Canal (Package-91) Earthwork Excavation, C.C.Lining including Mylavaram Head works and improvements to the reservoir South Canal from

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

11 Works - Investigation, Preparation of HPs, design, excavation, construction of CM & CD works of HNSS main canal from Km.340.000 to Km.360.000 excluding Tunnel from Km.358.000 to 360.000 under HNSS Phase-II in Anantapur Dist. - Package No.9. 5. Modernisation of Mylavaram South Canal (Package-91) Earthwork Excavation, C.C.Lining including Mylavaram Head works and improvements to the reservoir South Canal from

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

11 Works - Investigation, Preparation of HPs, design, excavation, construction of CM & CD works of HNSS main canal from Km.340.000 to Km.360.000 excluding Tunnel from Km.358.000 to 360.000 under HNSS Phase-II in Anantapur Dist. - Package No.9. 5. Modernisation of Mylavaram South Canal (Package-91) Earthwork Excavation, C.C.Lining including Mylavaram Head works and improvements to the reservoir South Canal from

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

5[section 115JC] or section 115VW] [or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.] [(3) The return of income referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be furnished by a person mentioned in column (ii) of the Table below to whom the conditions specified

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

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA\nin respect of the sale of scrap and interest receipts is not sustainable.\nAs a result, ground no 5 is allowed.\n7. In result, the appeal is allowed.\"\n36. The revenue aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the\nmatter in appeal before us.\n37.\nShri. Sourabh Soparkar, Senior Advocate

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

SEW FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.499/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sew Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemptions), Ward 1(4) Pan:Aaats7433H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V Siva Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/01/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1 Coimbatore, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-5 Coimbatore, 27-01-2025 Is Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the corpus donation only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove that corpus donation is utilized or invested in the modes stated in section 11(5

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

11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. The basic issue for consideration is that the investment, which did not yield any exempt income, should enter or not enter into the computation under Rule 8D, while arriving at the average value of investment, income from which does not or shall

PRASANTH NANDANURU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5. Learned Assessing Officer, among other things, disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee under article 16(1) of the DTAA and made an addition of Rs. 46,13,736/- on that score and passed the draft assessment order, holding that in as much as the assessee was under the payrolls of Wells India till his services were terminated here

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)

11,90,000/- made under Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance

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)

11,90,000/- made under Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance