DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

138,44,11,485/-, the same cannot be added separately. On this score, we uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A) and confirm the deletion. Ground No. 5 is accordingly dismissed. 25. Next issue by way of Ground No. 6 of Revenue’s appeal that arises for our consideration is the disallowance of Rs. 19,56,840/- under section

KMC CONTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

138,44,11,485/-, the same cannot be added separately. On this score, we uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A) and confirm the deletion. Ground No. 5 is accordingly dismissed. 25. Next issue by way of Ground No. 6 of Revenue’s appeal that arises for our consideration is the disallowance of Rs. 19,56,840/- under section

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i): Rs.6,54,33,770/-; and (ii) transfer pricing adjustment as suggested by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TP), Hyderabad, dated 28/10/2011: Rs.21,85,04,408/-. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 11. On perusal of the CIT(A) order, we find that

VICTORY TRANSFORMERS AND SWITHGEARS LIMITED, MEDCHAL,R.R.DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Victory Transformers & Switchgears Limited, Medchal, R.R. District. Pan Aabcv 9082D …..Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent.

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.29,09,138 made by both the lower authorities. It emerges at the outset

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , HYDERABAD

section 801A of the Act.\n4.\nAggrieved with such assessment orders, assessee filed\nappeals before the LD.CIT(A), who granted part relief to the\nassessee by passing common order dt.15.03.2019, wherein it was\nheld as under :\n“6.......\nTo sum up, the appellant is eligible for all the projects as claimed for\ndeduction u/s. 801A but for the Narayanpet project

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, MADHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowed the claim made. 5.The Assessing Officer is of the view that the "formation of Venkatadri Reservoir Bund" under "Palamuru Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme" does not fall in any of the definitions of infrastructure projects. In this regard, the assessee is submitting a copy of the agreement between the Government of Telangana and the JV. The head shows that

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowed the claim of deduction, inter-alia, on the ground that a claim not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) and sought to be made for the first time in a return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 153A of the Act would not be maintainable. Further, the assessee was also found to be ineligible

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

disallowing claims of 80IA of\nthe Act. Thereafter, the action of the AO was upheld by the\nLD.CIT(A) for AYs 2004-05 & 2005-06. Further, for the A.Y. 2003-\n04, the LD.CIT(A) enhanced the income and consequential order\nwas passed with an income of Rs.3,69,73,210/-. The appellant\nfiled further appeals on the order of LD.CIT

AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,ADILABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-2020 Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Adilabad. Income Tax, Pan : Abfpa5795A. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Mantri, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2023

disallowance of Chapter-VIA deductions of Rs. 1,03,894/- thereby assessing total income of the assessee at Rs. 13,90,690/-. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on account of non-prosecution and on merits. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD RACE CLUB, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 (Through Video Conference) Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Hyderabad Race Club, Tax, Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaach 2773C (Appellant) (Respondent)

138,61,11,309/- and added the same to the returned income. 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) following the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AYs 2004-05 to 2011-12 as well as following the decisions of the respective CITs(A) in assessee’s own case

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal I

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowed under section 40(A3) of the Act. In respect of balance amount of Rs.98,62,500/- reflected in the loose sheets, it pertains to development of the project in QM Nagar land belongs to Shri K. Raghuram Krishna Raju and the project got held up due to denial of permission by the Archaeological Department and the same

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallow the exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and to treat the long term capital gains as income from un-explained source. Assessee contended that he realized the long term capital gains by transfer of capital asset and, therefore, in terms of section 10(38) of the Act, he is entitled to claim exemption. Page

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 80IA of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with such assessment orders, assessee filed appeals before the LD.CIT(A), who granted part relief to the assessee by passing common order dt.15.03.2019, wherein it was held as under : “6……. ….. ….. To sum up, the appellant is eligible for all the projects as claimed for deduction u/s. 801A but for the Narayanpet project

DUDEKULA DASTAGIRI ,KURNOOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

138/-, out of which the assessee has given works worth Rs. 12,11,70,408/- on sub-contract and the major expenditure incurred by the assessee as per profit and loss account is towards other expenses amounting to Rs. 1,79,40,593/-, learned Assessing Officer called for the production of the bills, vouchers etc., to verify the expenses claimed

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 352/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall now proceed to answer these three issues in the light of the submissions made on either side and available material on record. 4. Coming to the issue relating to the corporate guarantee, contention of assessee before the learned TPO was that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 352/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall now proceed to answer these three issues in the light of the submissions made on either side and available material on record. 4. Coming to the issue relating to the corporate guarantee, contention of assessee before the learned TPO was that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 320/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7366H] आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 351/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabca7366H अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri M Vijay Kumar, Cit(Dr) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Bg Reddy

disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall now proceed to answer these three issues in the light of the submissions made on either side and available material on record. 4. Coming to the issue relating to the corporate guarantee, contention of assessee before the learned TPO was that

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD KNOWLEDGE CITY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 320/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7366H] आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 351/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabca7366H अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri M Vijay Kumar, Cit(Dr) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Bg Reddy

disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall now proceed to answer these three issues in the light of the submissions made on either side and available material on record. 4. Coming to the issue relating to the corporate guarantee, contention of assessee before the learned TPO was that