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

section 80G of the Act in respect of such donations which formed part of the spend towards CSR. Respectfully following the jurisdictional tribunal, ground no 3 is allowed. 5. Ground No.4 is raised against disallowance of business expenses on estimate basis amounting to Rs.16,31,00,000/- on account of deduction U/s 80IA. During the assessment proceedings, the AO called

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. Y S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, KADAPA

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is\nallowed

3) u/s 131 on oath\nfrom Shri Sanjay S. Mitra, Shri Neel Kamal Berry and Shri\nJoydeep Basu of the Dalmia group were also furnished to the\nassessee and sought clarifications on the matter. The assessee\nvide letter dated 20.09.2013 stated that the proposal to make\naddition on the basis of Investigation Report submitted in the\ncase of Dalmia group

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance of his claim for deduction of expenditure of Rs.16,33,050/-. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 5 Rashid Hussain vs. ACIT 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), and addition towards Form 26AS mismatch. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A., referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.12.2024, submitted

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

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

disallowance of donations under Section 80G towards CSR expenditure. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate, referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024, submitted that, the assessment

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 1,42,72,621/-, and MAT adjustment u/s 115JB amounting to Rs. 10,57,25,727/-, along with addition of book profit u/s 115JB of Rs. 10,57,25,727/-. 6. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, assessee has filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 27.01.2017. Considering the objections

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

NTT DATA BUSINESS SOLUTIOS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowing the relief claimed by the Appellant of INR 31,48,038 towards foreign tax credits under section 90/91 of the Act, without considering assessee's submission and documentary evidence. 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in disregarding Assessee's claim for additional relief

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowing 50% of the expenditure, despite TPO accepting similar expenditure to be at arm's length to the extent of its actual cost in subsequent assessment year (AY 2022-23) 5. The lower authorities have erred in making an adjustment towards interest on loans advanced to subsidiaries despite the fact that, under the terms of the loan agreement, no interest

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowing 50% of the expenditure, despite TPO accepting similar expenditure to be at arm's length to the extent of its actual cost in subsequent assessment year (AY 2022-23) 5. The lower authorities have erred in making an adjustment towards interest on loans advanced to subsidiaries despite the fact that, under the terms of the loan agreement, no interest

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

section 194A and other provisions of the\nAct. In paragraph 2 of that D.O. letter, it was stated that\nwhile paying interest, income-tax was deductible at the\nrates in force during that financial year with effect from 1-4-\n1975, if the amount exceeded Rs.1,000.\nPursuant to those instructions, the Land Acquisition\nOfficers, while depositing the enhanced compensation

SHIVA RANJANI VEJJA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3) to Section 124 of the Act, the petitioner had lost his right to question jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1(1), Noida. 20. Sub-section (5) to Section 124, though limited in scope, would also be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Noida

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowing for the market risk adjustment to eliminate the difference in the risk level of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 3:3 The Appellant submits that the learned AO/TPO be directed to recalculate the adjustment made by him to the Appellant's total income and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. 4:0 Transfer Pricing

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

disallowing for the market risk adjustment to eliminate the difference in the risk level of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 3:3 The Appellant submits that the learned AO/TPO be directed to recalculate the adjustment made by him to the Appellant's total income and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. 4:0 Transfer Pricing

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

section 194A and other provisions of the\nAct. In paragraph 2 of that D.O. letter, it was stated that\nwhile paying interest, income-tax was deductible at the\nrates in force during that financial year with effect from 1-4-\n1975, if the amount exceeded Rs.1,000.\nPursuant to those instructions, the Land Acquisition\nOfficers, while depositing the enhanced compensation

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

disallowed in the previous year.\nInvestment allowance under Section 32AD\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO,\nunder the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating\nthat the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance as per\nSection 32AD of the Act.\nInitiation of penalty under Section 270A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. BHAGYANAGAR INDIA LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1200/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Income Tax Officer, M/S. Bhagyanagar India Ward-1(3), Hyderabad. Vs. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan:Aaacb8963C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 16.05.2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

3 26.12.2018. While doing so, the Ld. AO made disallowances of Rs.27,464/- under Section 37(1) of the Act, disallowance of Rs.6,09,705/- out of miscellaneous expenditure, and a disallowance of Rs.75,59,818/- under Section 14A of the Act. These disallowances led to an addition of Rs.81,96,987/- to the gross total income of Rs.41

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance can be made. 16) The Assessee has placed the reliance on the following cases: a) ITAT, Hyderabad decision in the case of KPC Ltd. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. b) Sri Ram Jhanwar Lal vs, Income Tax Officer [2010 – 321 ITR 400 Rajasthan High Court] c) Bharat Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002 — 258 ITR 0140 Rajasthan High