THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

disallowance under Section 14A: Rs.15,75,000/-; and (ii). addition u/s 56(2)(viia) : Rs.18,03,62,857/-. In compliance, the A.O. filed his “remand report” on 10.01.2020. Thereafter, the CIT(A) finding no infirmity in the addition/disallowance made by the A.O. upheld the same. 8. The assessee company being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) has carried

ASST. DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMP)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. ACTION FOR WELFARE AND AWAKENING IN RURAL ENVIRONMENT (AWARE), HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

13,76,58,674/- is erroneous both in facts and in law. 3. The observation of the CIT(A) that exemption u/s.11 was granted upto the A.Y.1989-90 only and no exemption was granted for the A.Ys. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1994-95 and hence provisions of section 11(2) are not applicable in respect of the income accumulated

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

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), , HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure against the unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of bulk drugs. In the process, the assessee purchased various solvents and used them for manufacturing bulk drugs. The used solvents

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

disallowed the same.\n5. Ostensibly, the assessee during the course of the assessment\nproceedings came up with a new claim, wherein based on a revised\nstatement of computation of income that was filed with the A.O.\non 29.08.2010, it was claimed by him that as the agricultural land\nsituated at Village: Manchirevula was not a “capital asset” within\nthe meaning

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowance of Rs. 94,55,889/- are upheld and sustained. Accordingly. relevant grounds of appeal are dismissed and not allowed. 6. In result, the present appeal of the appellant is dismissed and not allowed.” 12. The assessee company, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 13. We have heard

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)

13) read with section 144B of the Act, dated 06 December 2024 is illegal and void in as much as it is barred by limitation as the order is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act and therefore the order, is liable to be set aside. Grounds relating to corporate tax: 2. Ground 2: Erroneous

SUDHEER PARIMALA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.758/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Sudheer Parimala, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 016. Vs. Ward-10(1), Hyderabad. Pan Ahppp7572E Pin - 500 004. Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ca Kranthi Palivela & Ca Mrudulatha For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order

13 (Bombay)/(2024) 338 CTR (Bom) 25, which was also authored by one of us (the Chief Justice), where paragraph No.15 reads as under: “15 The validity of a notice must be judged on the basis of the law existing as on the date on which the notice is issued under Section 148 of the Act, which in the present

DELOITTE & TOUCHE ASSURANCE & ENTERPRISE RISK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / ITA-TP No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Deputy Deloitte Tax Services Commissioner of India Private Limited, 341/Hyd/2023 2018-19 Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-8(1), [PAN: AABCD9771F] Hyderabad Deloitte & Touche Deputy Assurance & Commissioner of Enterprise Risk 342/Hyd/2023 2018-19 Income

DELOITTEE TAX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / ITA-TP No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Deputy Deloitte Tax Services Commissioner of India Private Limited, 341/Hyd/2023 2018-19 Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-8(1), [PAN: AABCD9771F] Hyderabad Deloitte & Touche Deputy Assurance & Commissioner of Enterprise Risk 342/Hyd/2023 2018-19 Income

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

13. Coming back to disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer for Rs.10,67,172/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962. Admittedly, the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts for investment activity and business activity. Although, the assessee claims that, it has not incurred any expenditure for earning dividend income and further, has incurred

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

13 of section 80IA are not applicable and is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer ignored the provision to section 801IA(4)(iv){b), by virtue of which the profit derived laying of such network of new lines for transmission or distribution

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

13 of section 80IA are not applicable and is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer ignored the provision to section 801IA(4)(iv){b), by virtue of which the profit derived laying of such network of new lines for transmission or distribution

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

13 of section 80IA are not applicable and is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer ignored the provision to section 801IA(4)(iv){b), by virtue of which the profit derived laying of such network of new lines for transmission or distribution

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

13 of section 80IA are not applicable and is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer ignored the provision to section 801IA(4)(iv){b), by virtue of which the profit derived laying of such network of new lines for transmission or distribution

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

13 of section 80IA are not applicable and is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer ignored the provision to section 801IA(4)(iv){b), by virtue of which the profit derived laying of such network of new lines for transmission or distribution