SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Act on 28.06.2017, disallowing the\nbusiness expenditure, the assessee preferred an appeal against such\nrectification order before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A), vide order\ndated 29.07.2022, confirmed the disallowance made by the Ld. AO.\n9.2 It was explained that the assessee, under a genuine and bona fide\nimpression, believed that since

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

disallowed and added back to the income returned." I have already discussed in details at para 5.2. above that generation of power by the Appellant is akin to manufacture or production of any article or thing and, therefore, the Appellant is entitled to claim of additional depreciation u/s 32 (1)(iia) @35% and not @20% as has been concluded

ANALOGICS TECH INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance of ₹44,651/- under section 37(1) of the Act in respect of delayed payment of service tax, provident fund, and VAT. During previous year assessee paid interest on delayed payment of service tax amounting to ₹1590/-, Interest on delayed payment of provident fund of ₹15,934/- and interest on VAT of ₹27,127

HARSHINI EPC PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

127 taxmann.com 824. 7. Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2015) 61 taxmann.com 118. 8. PCIT Vs. Today Network Ltd. – (2022) 141 taxmann.com 275. 9. Vibha Agrotech Limited Vs. DCIT – ITA No.179/Hyd/2018. 13. Per contra, ld. DR had submitted that the amendment under section 14A of the Act is introduced by the Finance Act, 2022 is retrospective in nature and therefore

ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act, as per which, no TDS is required to be deducted on payment of bank interest and accordingly no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, in case of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,27,840/-, the Ld. CIT(A) has not deleted the addition and in fact

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act, as per which, no TDS is required to be deducted on payment of bank interest and accordingly no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, in case of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,27,840/-, the Ld. CIT(A) has not deleted the addition and in fact

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act, as per which, no TDS is required to be deducted on payment of bank interest and accordingly no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, in case of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,27,840/-, the Ld. CIT(A) has not deleted the addition and in fact

ANRAK ALUMINIUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules in arriving proportionate interest expenditure disallowance of Rs.3,37,63,307/-. Case records and more particularly para 3.4 of the assessment order suggests that the assessee was found to have made investments of Rs.17,41,46,612/- relating to its exempt income from dividends to the tune

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

127 ITD 238 (Hyd) for the batch of years from 1999-00 to 2006-07. 3. The Ld. AO further failed to observe that based on the erstwhile orders (referred above), the appellate authorities were judicious enough to allow the appeals in favor of the appellant in all the assessments where the additions with regard to Interest on Special Fund

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,,SIRICILLA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

127 ITD 238 (Hyd) for the batch of years from 1999-00 to 2006-07. 3. The Ld. AO further failed to observe that based on the erstwhile orders (referred above), the appellate authorities were judicious enough to allow the appeals in favor of the appellant in all the assessments where the additions with regard to Interest on Special Fund

NEO SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

section 282 of the Act r.w. rule 127 of the Rules, and therefore Appellant could not put forth his case. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.32,58,747 by disallowing